[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 119 (Wednesday, September 4, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9778-S9798]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 3666, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3666) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development and for sundry independent agencies, boards, 
     commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Bond amendment No. 5167, to further amend certain 
     provisions relating to housing.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I observe the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I think the parliamentary situation in which 
we find ourselves is this particular provision dealing with the Bion 
Program in NASA was included in the House bill. The committee amendment 
struck the House prohibition on those activities.
  So, procedurally, the people who want to maintain the amendment will, 
after discussion, move to table the committee amendment, which is, I 
believe, the pending business. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BOND. Therefore, we can begin the discussion whenever the 
proponents wish. The tabling motion will come at the end of the 
discussion. We would like to make sure that everyone who wants to be 
heard on this issue has an opportunity. We do not yet have a time 
agreement. We talked about 2 hours last night. I would like to know 
from the proponents, and will be discussing with them, how much time we 
need. There are some on our side who wish to maintain the amendment.
  I hope we can wrap up the debate in fairly short order this morning 
and then move to the tabling motion. But I reserve my comments on the 
issue until those who are proponents have an opportunity to present 
their views.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I think that is a very good way to proceed. Hopefully, 
we can conclude this before 11:30 and then be able to move to the Iraqi 
amendment, so when we come back after the conference we can dispose of 
both of those and be then ready to continue to move the bill. That is 
kind of the way I see it.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the ranking member for her very helpful 
suggestions. My view is we are now open for business for the next hour 
or so. We could have a very spirited debate on this important issue, 
and I hope then we will be in a position to resolve it.
  I ask my colleague from New Hampshire if he is ready to proceed. If 
so, I will yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


         Excepted Committee Amendment on Page 104, Lines 21-24

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, the pending amendment is a committee 
amendment to strike the language in the bill, as the Senator from 
Missouri has just indicated, that prohibits funding from being used for 
the so-called Bion 11 and 12 missions. The amendment will prevent the 
waste of approximately $15.5 million on wasteful research involving 
sending Russian primates into space. Let me repeat that, because one 
may wonder why we are spending money to send Russian primates into 
space. I wonder that myself, but that is what we are talking about. 
What we are trying to do is prevent the waste of $15.5 million of 
taxpayer money involving research--and it is wasteful research--sending 
Russian primates into space.
  I would also like the record to reflect that Senators Feingold, 
Helms, Kerry of Massachusetts, D'Amato, and Bumpers have joined me in 
opposition to funding for this Bion Program. It is a bipartisan group 
of Senators, as you can tell, crossing the whole political spectrum. I 
believe Senator Feingold will be speaking on the issue, if not others.
  Just so there is no confusion, the language before the Senate passed 
the House by an overwhelming vote of 244 to 171. It appears on page 104 
of the Senate bill. It reads as follows:

       None of the funds made available in this act for the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration may be used to 
     carry out or pay the salaries of personnel who carry out the 
     Bion 11 and 12 projects.

  The pending committee amendment strikes this language. This is what 
we object to. I want to say at the outset, it is very important, I 
spent almost 6 years on the Science and Technology Committee in the 
House of Representatives before I came to the Senate. On that committee 
I do not think there is anyone who was a stronger supporter of NASA or 
the space program. I continued that support in my time in the Senate. 
This is not, and I want to make it very clear, it is not a NASA-bashing 
amendment. I am not asking these funds be taken out of NASA. I am just 
asking they not be spent on this particular project, the Bion project.
  So let me make it very clear. This Senator has offered a number of 
amendments in the past to cut spending, and I am proud of them, but 
that is not what this is. I am not trying to take the money from NASA. 
I am trying to stop NASA from wasting money that NASA probably could 
find good use for in some other way.
  I had hoped the committee would retain the Bion language, given that 
it passed the House by a majority of 73 votes. I felt it was reasonable 
that that language be retained. Frankly, I am disappointed it was not. 
We had 147 Republicans and 96 Democrats on the House side who supported 
the amendment to eliminate that funding.
  There has been a great deal of criticism of the program from a wide 
variety of groups: the science community--it is interesting--the 
science community; not all in the science community, but many; taxpayer 
groups, those who wish to save tax dollars; animal welfare 
organizations; and, as well, interestingly enough, from people who had 
the courage to speak up inside NASA. So when we have NASA people, 
people within the science community, animal rights organizations, and 
taxpayer groups all together on an issue, I think it is worth the 
Senate's time to look at it very carefully.
  This letter is from Tom Schatz of Citizens Against Government Waste, 
which strongly supports this amendment. He says here, this vote will be 
considered for inclusion in their 1996 congressional ratings. This is a 
group I have come to deeply respect because they have the knack for 
finding the most egregious examples of waste in the Federal 
bureaucracy. It is a very good group. Most Senators here are aware of 
this group and the very good job they do.
  Mr. Schatz is very specific in his letter. I ask unanimous consent 
this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

       Dear Senator: On behalf of the 600,000 members of the 
     Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAW), I urge 
     you to support the efforts by Sens. Smith (R-N.H.) and 
     Feingold (D-Wis.) to eliminate funding

[[Page S9779]]

     for two Bion missions in the FY 1997 Veterans' Affairs, 
     Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies 
     Appropriations bill (H.R. 3666). By eliminating this 
     unnecessary program, taxpayers could save as much as $15.5 
     million.
       These missions, known as Bion 11 and 12, are joint U.S./
     Russian/French flights scheduled for September 1996 and July 
     1998. The Russians will send Rhesus monkeys into space for 14 
     days so that scientists can study the effects of microgravity 
     on the body. According to the Congressional Research Service, 
     Russia has been executing these missions since 1973, and NASA 
     has participated in the last eight, beginning in 1975. A 
     variety of experiments on rodents, insects, and primates have 
     been performed for the U.S. in the 17 years between 1975 and 
     1992, the date of the last Bion mission.
       Data from the seventy-five successful Space Shuttle flights 
     or long-term stays by Russian cosmonauts, such as Valery 
     Polyakov's 439 day flight, could more accurately and less 
     expensively provide the information scientists need to study 
     these effects. In fact, NASA has performed several of its own 
     experiments on monkeys, including two shuttle missions. If 
     NASA feels that it is necessary to do further study on the 
     matter, they only need ask astronaut Shannon Lucid how she 
     feels when she returns from the Mir Space Station. Tax 
     dollars should not be spent on duplicative and wasteful 
     programs.
       During consideration of H.R. 3666, the House supported an 
     amendment to eliminate funding by a solidly bipartisan vote 
     of 244-171. The Senate must also reject this funding. We urge 
     you to support Sens. Smith and Feingold and kill this program 
     at once. Any vote on this program will be considered for 
     inclusion in the CCAGW 1996 Congressional Ratings.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Thomas A. Schatz,
                                                        President.

  Mr. SMITH. I will quote from the letter just a couple of lines:

       On behalf of the 600,000 members of the Council for 
     Citizens Against Government Waste, I urge you to support the 
     efforts by Sens. Smith and Feingold to eliminate funding for 
     two Bion missions in the FY 1997 Veterans' Affairs, Housing 
     and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies 
     Appropriations bill (H.R. 3666). By eliminating this 
     unnecessary program, taxpayers could save as much as $15.5 
     million.

  He goes on to say what these missions are.

       These missions known as Bion 11 and 12 are joint U.S./
     Russian/French flights scheduled for September 1996 and July 
     1998. The Russians will send Rhesus monkeys into space for 14 
     days so that scientists can study the effects of microgravity 
     on the body. According to the Congressional Research Service, 
     Russia has been executing these missions since 1973, and NASA 
     has participated in the last eight, beginning in 1975. A 
     variety of experiments on rodents, insects, and primates have 
     been performed for the U.S. in the 17 years between 1975 and 
     1992, the date of the last Bion mission.

  In addition, Mr. Schatz goes on to say:

       Data from the seventy-five successful Space Shuttle flights 
     or long-term space by Russian cosmonauts . . . could more 
     accurately and less expensively provide the information 
     scientists need to study these effects. In fact, NASA has 
     performed several of its own experiments on monkeys, 
     including two shuttle missions. If NASA feels it is necessary 
     to do further study on the matter, they only need to ask 
     Shannon Lucid how she feels when she returns from the Mir 
     Space Station. (She has been up there several months.) Tax 
     dollars should not be spent on duplicative and wasteful 
     programs.

  That is the end of the information from that letter. It is amazing 
that NASA would ask the taxpayers of the United States, or this 
committee, bringing this bill to the floor, would ask the taxpayers of 
the United States to spend $15.5 million to put monkeys in flight for 
14 days to find out what effect space has on those monkeys in 14 days 
when we put human beings in space for 469 days. If there is anyone 
listening to me or anyone, a Member of this body, who can tell me how 
that money is well spent, I would like to hear from them. Again, let me 
repeat, putting monkeys in space for research for 14 days to find out 
the effects on the body when we send human beings in space for 469 
days--can somebody help me? I am sending out the alert here.
  Mr. President, this is one of the best examples that I have seen in 
my entire congressional career of a case of a program that began with 
good intentions that has outlived itself, because you see, many, many 
years ago when we started this, astronauts were not the first in space, 
primates were. We were obviously trying to find out the effects of the 
future human beings who were going to be in space. Well, that is past; 
that is over. But, O my God, let's not cut a Government program. 
Whatever we do, let's keep it going, let's keep it funded, let's not 
get rid of any bureaucrats who might be doing research we do not need 
to do. My goodness, we certainly would not want to do that, but that is 
exactly what the situation is here, Mr. President. This is outrageous. 
It is outrageous. There is no need for it, and, yet, we are doing it.
  I also have a letter cosigned by Mr. Schatz and Ralph De Gennaro of 
Taxpayers for Common Sense, another antiwaste group that has done 
excellent work on this issue.
  Mr. President, I said it is estimated that this amendment would 
prevent the waste of 15.5 million taxpayers' dollars by prohibiting 
funding of these two projects, Bion 11 and Bion 12, which involves 
sending primates into space. The Bion 11 mission is scheduled for 
liftoff this month, with Bion 12 in 1998.
  Russian-owned rhesus monkeys would be launched from Kazakhstan in 
Russian capsules loaded with Russian technology for 2 weeks to study 
the effects of weightlessness. I say to my friends, the Senator from 
Maryland and the Senator from Missouri, who I know care about wasting 
taxpayers' dollars, 14 days in space for rhesus monkeys to determine 
the effects of weightlessness on the human body when we have human 
beings in space for 469 days? Please, give me a break. Save $15.5 
million. The House said so. Let's be reasonable.
  I realize that some are going to suggest this is still important. I 
am waiting to hear how someone can tell me that it is. NASA has already 
conducted five similar missions using primates as test subjects, as 
well as two shuttle missions dedicated to studying the effects of 
gravity on humans. Shuttle mission spacelab life sciences 1 and 2 
focused on the effect of microgravity on astronauts in 1991 and 1993. 
Five United States-Russian ventures in the eighties and early nineties 
sent primates into space to research the same subject. It is bad enough 
the Russians are doing it. Why do we have to do it? I know there are a 
lot of people in my State of New Hampshire who would love to have that 
$15.5 million, a lot of needy people, people who do not have enough 
money for fuel in the winter--that is coming on us--or perhaps helping 
some small business get started and create more jobs.
  This is not an anti-NASA amendment. This is a commonsense amendment, 
and the taxpayers group says they are going to rate this one, and they 
should, they absolutely should. I am glad they are doing it, because 
this is an outrageous waste of taxpayers' money.
  I know year after year, we do see anti-NASA amendments. We always 
have one from the Senator from Arkansas cutting the space station, and 
I oppose it every time because I support the space station. I oppose 
that amendment because I support the space station. I have always voted 
against these amendments to cut NASA or to cut the space station.
  As I mentioned, I was a member of the Science, Space and Technology 
Committee in the House of Representatives for 6 years. I was a member 
of the Congressional Space Caucus and the Republican task force on 
space exploration. So I come at this not anti-NASA, and every person in 
the space agency who has worked there for any period of time knows 
this. They also know that this project is a waste of money.

  I coauthored NASA authorization bills. In fact, I wrote language 
providing for the National Weather Service to conduct pH monitoring to 
provide the public with access to information about the acidity of 
rainfall. I cosponsored a resolution urging support for the space 
station budget and have consistently voted against efforts to cut the 
space station. I cosponsored legislation to promote space 
commercialization.
  This is a pro-NASA amendment. That is what this is. This is a pro-
NASA amendment because it is going to provide $15.5 million for 
something worthwhile. Taxpayers deserve to have their money spent 
wisely. They work hard to pay taxes to the Federal Government, and they 
deserve to have that money spent, not only wisely but reasonably.
  (Mr. BROWN assumed the chair.)
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, if you want to cast a NASA bashing vote, 
then this amendment is not the amendment for you, because that is not 
what

[[Page S9780]]

this is. This amendment, this $15 million comes right out of important 
NASA programs like the space station and the space shuttle. But if you 
are like me and you are excited about the advances we are making in 
space exploration, you ought to vote to eliminate this kind of waste 
and provide it in areas where the space program could use the money. 
Every nickel we spend on the Russian Bion program is money that would 
have been spent on important United States space priorities. Every 
nickel.
  For example, we could divert this money to speed up the development 
of Lockheed Martin's Venture Star, the new X-33 single-stage reusable 
reorbit launch vehicle. The cost of this project will be about $1 
billion through the year 2000. This is exciting, revolutionary 
technology, and it represents precisely the kind of innovation that I 
am talking about and precisely the kind of innovation that the American 
people expect out of their space program, which will create millions of 
jobs in the 21st century.
  Furthermore, in the Venture Star Project, we will have a public-
private partnership that helps ease the financial burden on the 
taxpayer. I am told that the estimated cost of sending payloads into 
space on the Venture Star will be approximately $1,000 per pound, 
compared with a $10,000 per pound cost on the space shuttle. A 
tremendous savings.
  This $15 million could be used to accelerate the development of 
technology that will truly benefit our knowledge of space and enhance 
the competitiveness of the U.S. industry.
  Mr. President, we all know how a program takes a life of its own. 
There has never been an example, as I said before, in all of my years 
in Congress that is a more egregious example of this exact fact: a 
program that went beyond what it was supposed to do and yet it 
continues because no one wants to pull the plug, because somebody is 
getting some research dollars to do this, somebody is tending the cages 
of the animals, somebody is making the money, getting a salary 
somewhere, so God forbid we should cut off a program.
  I know that the current occupant of the chair, the Senator from 
Colorado, has joined me on many occasions in cutting spending. I say to 
the distinguished Senator that this is an example of the kinds of 
things that he has fought for for so many years in the House and in the 
Senate. Again, a program to find out the effects of weightlessness on 
human beings by putting primates in space for 14 days. We now have 
humans in space for over 400 days, and we still have the program. I 
repeat that because I know the distinguished occupant of the chair came 
in after my comments. I want to be sure he heard them because I need 
his vote on this issue.

  The Bion Program is this kind of program. It has outlived itself. Let 
me give you a historical perspective. Let me read from a 1969 letter to 
Senator Peter Dominick, whose constituents at the time objected to NASA 
monkey experiments identical to Bion. NASA stated:

       The purpose of the biostat light mission is to determine 
     the effects of prolonged exposure to the space environment, 
     including weightlessness on the central nervous system, the 
     cardiovascular system, metabolism and the behavior of a 
     primate.

  That was 1969. Thirty years later, almost, NASA still makes the same 
argument for the program even though humans have gone to the Moon and 
spent more than 400 days in space at one time. Shannon Lucid is there 
now, and has been there a lot longer than 14 days.
  According to a July 11, 1995, article in the New York Times, more 
than 300 American and Russian astronauts have logged a total of 38 
years in space since Yuri Gagarin in 1961 became the first person to 
ride a rocket into orbit. Think of that. More than 300 American and 
Russian astronauts have logged a total of 38 years in space since 
Gagarin in 1961 became the first person. Yet we still have to send 
primates into space for 14 days to determine the effects of 
weightlessness on the central nervous system? And 38 years of time in 
space by humans. But the project continues.
  Why should we waste $15 million on a Russian project that is 
dedicated to an area of research that American scientists have already 
examined on seven previous missions? I do not know. Who knows? Nobody 
wants to pull the plug on the program. We do not want to offend the 
Russians? I do not know. We do not want to offend the French? I do not 
know, and I do not care. My responsibility is not to the French, it is 
not to the Russians. It is to the taxpayers. It just does not make 
sense. What are we going to learn?
  Please, somebody, tell me what we are going to learn 15 million 
dollars' worth of new information on these two 14-day flights. The bill 
before us cuts NASA's budget for 1997 by almost $200 million below last 
year's funding level. When I say ``cut,'' I do not mean it in President 
Clinton's terms where we increase a program by billions of dollars and 
call it a cut. That is the President's language. We have been through 
that with Medicare and Medicaid where we increase a program by 25 to 42 
percent and it is called a cut.
  This is a real cut, Mr. President. In simple math in 1996 we spent 
$13.9 billion on the NASA budget. This year we spent $13.7 billion. So 
we are going down. And yet we still waste this kind of money. I am not 
arguing the need to cut the budget in light of our $5 trillion debt. 
But if there is anything I hear consistently from my constituents back 
home is they want us to start with waste, start with waste. Cut out the 
waste, the fraud, the mismanagement and then we can look at other 
programs that we may have to cut to get the job done but, for goodness 
sakes, start with the most outrageous, egregious waste of taxpayer 
dollars.
  As one who is unabashedly a strong supporter for the NASA program, 
who is looking forward to the development of a new and exciting 
technology in the space program, who is looking forward to space 
exploration and the space station and all the positive spinoffs we will 
get, who is looking forward to the jobs that are being created, I would 
hate to see this money wasted on controversial and outdated research 
that reflects poorly on the agency. And it does. It reflects poorly on 
the agency.
  Somebody in management somewhere did not have the courage to tell 
somebody they no longer had to attend those primate cages or whatever 
they do or get any more money. Somebody did not have the courage to 
tell them or to move them to some other position. So here we go. This 
is going to reflect poorly on NASA. It reflects poorly on NASA.
  The Senate has an obligation to stop it just like the House did, Mr. 
President. I would like to share with my colleagues an article from the 
Washington Post on August 30, 1996, entitled, ``Reducing Force a Bad 
Idea, Space Center Director Says.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous 
consent that article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Aug. 30, 1996]

    Reducing Force a Bad Idea, Space Center Director Says--Multiple 
                Problems Predicted for Kennedy Facility

                          (By Seth Borenstein)

       Cape Canaveral.--Plans for a smaller work force at Kennedy 
     Space Center will lead to hundreds of layoffs in two years 
     and leave the center unable to do everything NASA expects of 
     it, the center's director said in a letter to his bosses.
       A dozen different types of work at Kennedy--including some 
     safety inspections--can't be done if the center's civil 
     service work force is cut to 1,445 as planned in October 
     1998, Director Jay Honeycutt said in an Aug. 7 letter. There 
     are more than 2,100 federal workers at the space center.
       A total of 547 people would have to be laid off as of Oct. 
     1, 1998, if the employment target doesn't change, Honeycutt 
     wrote. In the past, Honeycutt had said layoffs might be 
     avoided.
       ``The reduction predicted in . . . [the 1999 fiscal year] 
     effectively removes all but direct mission operations support 
     as of Oct. 1, 1998,'' Honeycutt wrote. ``I do not feel this 
     is a prudent approach for the center . . . or the agency.''
       In his letter, Honeycutt noted that the cuts would come 
     just as the space center begins overseeing massive upgrades 
     to the space shuttle and getting pieces of NASA's space 
     station ready for launch.
       Honeycutt said the 1,445-employee figure that NASA wants to 
     impose on the center was based on it becoming a government-
     owned, contractor-run facility--an approach that has been 
     heavily changed by NASA officials since it was announced in 
     May 1995.
       NASA plans to shrink the center's government work force 
     even further by October 1999, though be less than originally 
     planned. The agency had set a target of 1,135 workers for 
     Oct. 1, 1999, but in late July NASA's deputy administrator 
     wrote the General Accounting Office to say the revised target 
     would probably be 1,360.

[[Page S9781]]

       Honeycutt sent his letter to top space flight officials at 
     NASA headquarters and Johnson Space Center.
       The letter was part of a private, ongoing dialogue between 
     the space center and Washington about staffing levels, but it 
     became public Monday on an Internet computer site devoted to 
     upcoming layoffs at the space agency, spokesman Hugh Harris 
     said.
       Harris confirmed the letter on the non-NASA World Wide Web 
     site had been written by Honeycutt. He wrote that cutting the 
     civil service work force to 1,445 would, among other things:
       Leave NASA unable to monitor the safety and quality of 
     contractors' work.
       Make it impossible for the government to conduct safety 
     inspections of certain facilities.
       Force the center to discontinue independent safety studies 
     called for by the federal commission that investigated the 
     1986 Challenger explosion.
       Bring a halt to shuttle upgrade work beyond 1998.
       Prevent the space center from making technological 
     improvements that would cut shuttle launch costs and save 
     NASA money in the long run.
       If the current work force target for October 1998 isn't 
     changed, ``KSC's core engineering skills, [and] technical 
     expertise . . . are seriously eroded,'' Honeycutt wrote.
       Outsiders said Honeycutt's letter was a serious action for 
     a center director to take.
       ``After awhile you stop being overly polite,'' said Seymour 
     Himmel, a member of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel who 
     has studied morale and safety issues at the space center. 
     ``It's trying to be realistic about what they're being asked 
     to do with less, and what the consequences are.
       ``You are put in a position where you don't know what the 
     hell to do,'' Himmel said of Honeycutt's situation. ``If you 
     really have the programs of the agency at heart, you've got 
     to stand up and be counted.''
       A spokesman for Rep. David Joseph Weldon (R-Fla.), who is 
     vice chairman of the House space subcommittee, said Honeycutt 
     was justifiably upset. ``This is the doomiest and gloomiest 
     letter you will see,'' said the spokesman, J.B. Kump, 
     ``Hopefully, this will open some eyes at headquarters.''
       Ed Campion, a spokesman at NASA headquarters, said the 
     agency takes comments such as those in Honeycutt's letter 
     very seriously. ``These are the kind of frank discussions 
     that we have to have when we're in tight budget times and 
     trying to make hard decisions,'' he said.

  Mr. SMITH. The article is about a proposal where 547 people would 
have to be laid off as of October 1, 1998. For the $15.5 million we are 
spending on Bion we could afford to pay each of these people $28,000. I 
am not saying necessarily that I advocate that, but I just want to 
point out how much money $15 million is. Every one of those people are 
going to lose their job. They could be paid $28,000 a year just from 
this project. It is obvious they do not all make under $28,000, but the 
point is, we are laying off American workers at the Kennedy Space 
Center while we send $15.5 million to Russia to conduct redundant and 
wasteful research, not to mention the pain that you inflict on animals 
for no purpose, no purpose whatsoever--no purpose.
  I am not an advocate of totally eliminating all research, but I think 
if you all remember the recent story about the gorilla who picked up a 
small child that had fallen into a gorilla cage, picked it up in its 
arms and gently carried it to the door of the zookeeper so that they 
could open the door and carry that child out to safety, it saved the 
child's life from other gorillas that may have hurt it when the child 
had fallen into the cage. These are animals. They have feelings. Why 
would you want to inflict this kind of pain for nothing? It is the same 
family. They are primates, gorillas and chimps or monkeys. Why would 
you want to inflict that pain for no reason--no reason? To find out 
what weightlessness is like in space on these animals for 14 days?
  Let me go a little further on to why this research is so wasteful. I 
am going to cite a number of quotes from NASA experts, NASA documents, 
scientists, scholars, and medical experts that prove this point.
  Let me start with a memo from February 9 of this year. It was written 
by Jack Gibbons who serves as both the Assistant to the President for 
Science and Technology and the Director of the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy. And it is written to Dan Goldin, the Administrator 
of NASA.
  I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record, Mr. 
President.
  There being no objection, the memo was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                     Washington, February 9, 1996.
     Memorandum for Dan Goldin.
     From Jack Gibbons.
     Re Primates in Research.
       I am following up on our conversation about the situation 
     at NASA with respect to the use of primates in research. I 
     sympathize with your concern that the era of need for 
     primates in NASA's research is now behind us, and that it may 
     be time to retire those animals. I would be pleased to talk 
     with you about the situation and to discuss alternate options 
     to consider.
       I should point out that the Air Force is also interested in 
     options concerning their primates, and that the National 
     Institute of Medicine is planning to do a related study under 
     NIH sponsorship.
       Please let me know if you want to follow up. I look forward 
     to hearing from you.

  Mr. SMITH. This is on White House stationery, written on February 9, 
1996, from Jack Gibbons. And it is to the Director of NASA. Let me 
quote it. It is very brief.

       I am following up on our conversation about the situation 
     at NASA with respect to the use of primates in research. I 
     sympathize with your concern that the era of need for 
     primates in NASA's research is now behind us, and that it may 
     be time to retire those animals. I would be pleased to talk 
     with you about the situation and to discuss alternate options 
     to consider.

  How could you possibly be any clearer than that? This is from Mr. 
Gibbons, who is involved with these programs at NASA, to the Director 
saying it is time to wrap it up, we do not need the money for this 
project. Yet, here it is, stricken by the House, to their credit 
overwhelmingly, by a bipartisan vote. But here we go again. Let us 
leave it in. Who is the lobbyist for this? Who is pushing this? Why is 
it still in here? Why are we fighting this battle on the Senate floor? 
Who is this? Where is this coming from?
  NASA does not want it, apparently. Where is the lobby for this? I 
think it is a strong affirmation of my point that this research is 
unimportant and unnecessary. They do not want it. As this memo clearly 
states, our two top space officials did not think it was a priority in 
February, yet here we are in September, by golly, we will put it right 
in there. Let us spend that money. I do not know who called whom but 
somebody did, I guess.
  In fact, they concluded without hesitation, these two officials, that 
there is no longer any need whatsoever for such research, and the House 
of Representatives agreed with them overwhelmingly in June. I give a 
lot of credit to my friends in the House for acting reasonably.
  Since February is there any new startling information out there 
somewhere that provides some new development, some new revelation that 
now putting primates in space for 14 days is somehow going to prove, 
help us to understand weightlessness and the effects on the nervous 
system for humans who have been in space for 469 days?
  I want to hear this tremendous revelation of information. I want to 
hear about it. It must be exciting, because it persuaded somebody to 
change their mind between June and now. Where is this information? 
Where are the documents? People say, ``Why do you go out and get so 
excited over $15.5 million, over a couple of rhesus monkeys?'' If 
enough people got excited over $15.5 million every time we wasted that 
kind of money, we would save money around here and get the budget 
balanced a lot quicker and we would spend money a lot wiser. We have an 
obligation to take care of the little things, and the big things will 
take care of themselves.
  Proponents might talk about a recent commission that considered 
animal welfare. The commission was thrown together with the expectation 
that Congress might consider cutting the Bion Program. It is very 
interesting that we see a situation like this. It makes me wonder. I 
have been in Congress now 12 years. It really makes me wonder who is 
making the decisions in this Government? Who is really making the 
decisions? You have a situation where the top two officials in NASA, 
who deal with the project, do not want it. I don't know of any 
proponent in the White House that wants it. The House took it out. Yet, 
here we are on the Senate floor battling over it, wasting a couple of 
hours of time, perhaps, arguing about this $15.5 million spent on this 
primate research. Why? It really is amazing. Is somebody who works 
below these people going around them and somehow getting information 
here to this Senate? Yes, probably. I think the Senator from Colorado, 
who occupies the chair and who has had so many

[[Page S9782]]

amendments on this Senate floor and in the House regarding this kind of 
funding, knows that. That is exactly what happens. Frankly, whoever is 
doing this ought to be fired. They ought to be fired, and we would save 
a little more money.
  There have been a number of these sham committees already that were 
set up to study something long before this memo was written. So the 
latest round has taught us nothing. There is a quote from Dr. Larry 
Young, a professor of astronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology, MIT:

       We are about at the limit of what we can do on shuttle 
     missions in terms of understanding the long play of 
     weightlessness as it affects humans and animals.

  I would certainly think so. Fourteen days for primates and 400-plus 
days for humans, and we are still putting primates in space to study 
weightlessness on the human nervous system.
  This quote is from the final reports of the U.S. experiments flown of 
the Soviet biosatellite Cosmos 2044 Bion 9:

       The small number of animals studied after space flight 
     preclude drawing any major conclusions for the present.

  Now, I don't know if I can stand here and say, well, there is no 
circumstance at all, no chance that we might learn anything at all from 
these launches. I am sure we can probably figure something out. Who 
knows? Maybe monkeys' ears grow more in space. We can probably come up 
with something if we worked at it. But that is not the point. The point 
is that it is not cost effective, it is not humane, it is not an 
American priority, and it is not NASA's priority. That is the point. It 
is not NASA's priority, not humane, not cost effective, and not cost 
efficient. Yet, we are going to spend the money anyway.
  Unless I can get 50 people plus myself to disagree with the 
committee, we will spend it and put these animals through suffering for 
nothing. It is bad enough we have to do it for something, but here we 
are going to do it for nothing and spend the money. Unless I can get 50 
people to agree with me, that is exactly what will happen. I wonder how 
many Americans even realize that we are still sending primates into 
space. Frankly, until this amendment came to my attention, I didn't 
know it.

  Our two highest science officials, in the memo I just read, agree 
that the area of need for primates in NASA's research is now behind us. 
We have had humans in space for over 400 days. We have learned that 
most of the problems associated with weightlessness occur after about 2 
weeks in space, and the Bion flights are only 2 weeks long. Only in 
Washington, DC, really, only in Washington, only in the U.S. Government 
would you have a project as ridiculous as this. I'll repeat that. We 
have learned that most of the problems associated with weightlessness 
occur after 2 weeks in space. Yet, we put primates up for 2 weeks and 
then bring them down. They are not just sitting in the capsule; they 
are doing all kinds of pretty nasty things to these animals while they 
are in there.
  Mr. President, I do have some more comments to make, but I have used 
up a good portion of the hour. I think at this point I am going to 
yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time for other 
Senators who may wish to speak.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I thank my friend 
from New Hampshire for giving me an opportunity to answer some of the 
very pertinent questions he has raised. The effect of this amendment 
would be to prohibit NASA from spending $6.8 million in fiscal year 
1997 on an important, efficient, peer-reviewed, biomedical research 
program using rhesus monkeys flown on Russia's space vehicle. It 
doesn't change the total budget. It forces NASA to withdraw from a 
signed contract with Russia, override scientific peer review, and 
undermine the Animal Welfare Act, while at the same time handing animal 
rights extremists a victory.
  Now, there is no one in this body who has any greater aversion to 
Government waste and unnecessary spending than I do. I think my record 
as a Governor and in the Senate is one of opposing Government waste. I 
have challenged duplication of effort. I have pointed out time and time 
again where the Federal Government wastes money duplicating efforts and 
where States and local governments have duplicating authorities. I have 
fought many battles to cut out unnecessary activities. I have fought 
these battles where I know, from my experience as an ex-executive and 
as an administrator and as a legislator, where we can cut out waste.
  But there is also another area where I think we have made a lot of 
mistakes in this body, and that is in the area of science. I had a few 
courses in science, just enough to know that I am not a scientist. So 
when it comes to scientific matters, I think we ought to rely on the 
scientific community and get the best judgments from the scientists. If 
I were going to give a seat-of-the-pants science response, I might say 
something very simple like, ``We ought to be testing monkeys rather 
than human beings.'' That is a nonscientific response. But good science 
is at issue here. Are we going to substitute the scientific judgment of 
this body for the peer-reviewed science of the experts who have been 
brought together to say that we need this research? There are perhaps 
one or two Members of this body who are really qualified to make 
scientific judgments, who have some background in this area. I would be 
interested to hear from them. But for the most part, we are going to 
have to rely on what the scientists have told us. There are some in the 
opposing-Government-waste category who think that maybe, on the face of 
it, this is a wasteful activity. But they are plain wrong when you 
compare the science.
  Astronauts' bodies undergo major changes during long durations of 
space flight, changes which are debilitating on return to Earth.
  Some people can survive over a year in space. But we still do not 
know how to prevent the changes, or even if these changes are 
reversible.
  Let us see what science has said about it. Bion 11 and Bion 12 are 
outstanding values for the American taxpayer.
  Who is lobbying for this? Mr. President, I have a letter here of July 
31, 1996 signed by Cornelius Pings, president, Association of American 
Universities, C. Peter Magrath, president, National Association of 
State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, and Jordan J. Cohen, 
president, Association of American Medical Colleges.
  There you have it. That is a pretty tough lobbying group, the 
Association of American Universities, the National Association of State 
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, and the Association of American 
Medical Colleges. What do they say?

       The Bion missions are designed to study the biological 
     effects of low gravity and the space radiation environment on 
     the structure and function of individual physiological 
     systems and the body as a whole. Bion 11 and 12 will focus 
     specifically on the musculoskeletal system. While the loss of 
     muscle and bone mass during space flight is well documented, 
     neither the rate nor the specific mechanisms involved are 
     well understood. Research on human subjects in this area is 
     difficult because human crew members regularly practice 
     countermeasures designed to nullify some of the adaptive 
     responses to microgravity. While these actions may enhance 
     crew performance and comfort, they also alter or mask the 
     physiological symptoms being studied. Since tissue loss in 
     the musculoskeletal system may be one of the critical factors 
     limiting human space exploration, it is essential that we 
     understand how and why these changes occur and how we might 
     prevent them.

  Their conclusion is:

       We strongly support the use of merit review to determine 
     how limited Federal funds may most productively be spent for 
     scientific research. The Smith amendment would override 
     scientific peer review . . .

  Let me repeat that.

       The Smith amendment would override scientific peer review 
     and force NASA to withdraw from a signed contract with 
     international partners. We urge you to oppose the amendment.

  Mr. President, that is who is lobbying for this provision.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Association of American Universities, National 
           Association of State Universities and Land-Grant 
           Colleges; Association of American Medical Colleges,
                                                    July 31, 1996.
       Dear Senator: When the Senate turns to consideration of HR 
     3666, the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations bills, 
     we

[[Page S9783]]

     understand that Senator Robert Smith plans to offer an 
     amendment prohibiting NASA funding of the Bion 11 and 12 
     projects. We urge you to oppose this amendment.
       We are concerned about the precedent this amendment sets in 
     terminating research that has been reviewed and approved on 
     the basis of scientific merit. The Bion missions have been 
     peer-reviewed and approved by five independent panels over 
     the past eight years. The most recent panel, which submitted 
     its unanimous recommendations to NASA Administrator Dan 
     Goldin only last week, found that the quality of science 
     proposed is very high, that there are no known alternative 
     means to achieve the objectives, and that the animal care and 
     welfare proposals meet all requirements and U.S. legal 
     standards.
       The Bion missions are designed to study the biological 
     effects of low gravity and the space radiation environment on 
     the structure and function of individual physiological 
     systems and the body as a whole. Bion 11 and 12 will focus 
     specifically on the musculoskeletal system. While the loss of 
     muscle and bone mass during space flight is well documented, 
     neither the rate nor the specific mechanisms involved are 
     well understood. Research on human subjects in this area is 
     difficult because human crew members regularly practice 
     countermeasures designed to nullify some of the adaptive 
     responses to microgravity. While these actions may enhance 
     crew performance and comfort, they also alter or mask the 
     physiological symptoms being studied. Since tissue loss in 
     the musculoskeletal system may be one of the critical factors 
     limiting human space exploration, it is essential that we 
     understand how and why these changes occur and how we might 
     prevent them.
       We strongly support the use of merit review to determine 
     how limited federal funds may most productively be spent for 
     scientific research. The Smith amendment would override 
     scientific peer-review and force NASA to withdraw from a 
     signed contract with international partners. We urge you to 
     oppose the amendment.
           Sincerely,
     Cornelius J. Pings,
       President, Association of American Universities.
     C. Peter Magrath,
       President, National Association of State Universities and 
     Land-Grant Colleges.
     Jordan J. Cohen,
       President, Association of American Medical Colleges.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the Administrator took notice of the 
concerns of those who objected to the Bion effort. He convened a high-
level independent review program which completed its work on the Bion 
Task Force on July 1 with the unanimous recommendation to the NASA 
Advisory Council that NASA proceed with Bion 11 and 12 missions.
  He states in his letter of July 26:

       . . . the NASA Advisory Council unanimously approved the 
     findings and recommendations of the Task Force and forwarded 
     them to me.

  That is a letter of Daniel Goldin of July 26 of the NASA Advisory 
Council which is composed, among others, of professors at Stanford 
University, Cornell University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 
Florida A&M, DePaul University, California Institute of Technology, 
Harvard University, and a number of private sector organizations are 
involved. This NASA advisory council unanimously approved the 
recommendation of the Bion task force chaired by Ronald C. Merrell, 
Lampman professor and chairman, Department of Surgery of Yale 
University.
  That letter of July 2 to the advisory council says:

       We unanimously recommend that the Agency proceed with the 
     Bion Project. In response to the three questions you asked us 
     to address in reaching our recommendation we find the 
     following:
       1. The quality of the science proposed in the integrated 
     protocol is excellent. It has been reviewed by peers in a 
     very thorough and repeated manner and has withstood analysis 
     for nearly a decade. The science has been thoughtfully 
     integrated to accommodate an enormous matrix of material 
     which is highly likely to yield meaningful results.
       2. There are no known alternative means to achieve the 
     objectives of the proposal. The data do not exist at present 
     and there are no alternative species to test the hypotheses. 
     Specifically, the use of Rhesus monkeys seems inevitable to 
     achieve the objectives.
       3. The animal care and welfare proposals meet all 
     requirements and US legal standards.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Daniel C. 
Goldin and the attachments from the advisory council and the Bion task 
force be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of 
           the Administrator,
                                    Washington, DC, July 26, 1996.
     Hon. Christopher S. Bond,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on VA-HUD-Independent Agencies, 
         Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I wish to thank the Committee for 
     rejecting the limitation included in the House-passed version 
     of H.R. 3666, the FY 1997 VA-HUD-Independent Agencies 
     appropriations bill, which would have precluded NASA's use of 
     any appropriations in the bill for the conduct of the Bion 11 
     and 12 missions. The Bion Program is a cooperative space 
     venture among the U.S., Russian and French space agencies for 
     the conduct of international biomedical research using 
     Russian-provided infrastructure, spacecraft, payload and 
     primates. The House limitation effectively threatened the 
     principle of rigorous peer review in biomedical research, and 
     the Committee wisely chose to delete this limitation.
       As I indicated to you in my letter of July 5, a high-level 
     independent review of the program was completed by the Bion 
     Task Force on July 1, with a unanimous recommendation to the 
     NASA Advisory Council that NASA proceed with the Bion 11 and 
     12 missions. Yesterday, the NASA Advisory Council unanimously 
     approved the findings and recommendation of the Task Force 
     and forwarded them to me. I have accepted the recommendation 
     of the Council and the Task Force (enclosures 1 and 2) that 
     the Agency proceed with the Bion missions. I seek the 
     Committee's continued support for NASA's participation in the 
     Bion 11 and 12 missions as the Senate considers H.R. 3666, 
     and rejection of any amendment to restrict NASA's 
     participation in Bion.
       Again, thank you for allowing NASA to pursue its open 
     process of review for selecting the highest quality science 
     by peer review in conformance with U.S. animal welfare laws 
     and the highest ethical principles.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Daniel S. Goldin,
     Administrator.
                                                                    ____

         NASA Advisory Council, National Aeronautics and Space 
           Administration,
                                    Washington, DC, July 25, 1996.
     Mr. Daniel S. Goldin,
     Administrator, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Goldin: As you requested, a task force of the NASA 
     Advisory Council was formed to provide you with advice and 
     recommendations on NASA participation in the U.S.-French-
     Russian Bion Program. The task force, led by Dr. Ronald 
     Merrell, met on July 1. The membership was technically 
     competent with broad expertise appropriate for addressing the 
     task force's charter.
       At our meeting on July 24, Dr. Merrell briefed us on the 
     task force's activities and deliberations. We unanimously 
     approved its three findings and its recommendation to proceed 
     with the Bion project. We also support its strong advocacy 
     for continued efforts to strengthen the bioethics review 
     policy and process for animal experimentation to be 
     implemented before Bion 12. These findings and 
     recommendations are contained in the enclosed letter from Dr. 
     Merrell.
       The public was present and participated in both meetings. 
     Members of the Bion Task Force are to be commended for the 
     seriousness, care, and depth with which they carried out this 
     sensitive task. If we can be of any further assistance, 
     please do not hesitate to ask.
                                            Bradford W. Parkinson,
     Chair.
                                                                    ____



                                              Yale University,

                                      New Haven, CT, July 2, 1996.
     Re Bion task force.

     Bradford W. Parkinson, MD,
     Chairman, NASA Advisory Council, NASA Headquarters, Code Z, 
         300 E Street SW, Washington, DC.
       Dear Dr. Parkinson: The Bion Task Force, summoned by the 
     NAC to consider the matter of Bion 11 and 12, met at NASA 
     Headquarters on July 1, 1996. We responded to the attached 
     charge and all members were in attendance except for Dr. 
     Borer. Assignments and logistics had been discussed on a 
     telephone conference call May 15. At our meeting we were ably 
     supported by Dr. Frank Sulzman and aided by an extensive 
     panel of NASA scientists as well as project participants from 
     France and Russia. The public was present and participated in 
     the presentations. The agenda for our meeting and the 
     assignments are attached. Minutes of our activities will be 
     ready shortly. However, I though it appropriate to report 
     immediately our recommendation.
       We unanimously recommend that the Agency proceed with the 
     Bion Project. In response to the three questions you asked us 
     to address in reaching our recommendation we find the 
     following:
       1. The quality of the science proposed in the integrated 
     protocol is excellent. It has been reviewed by peers is a 
     very thorough and repeated manner and has withstood analysis 
     for nearly a decade. The science has been thoughtfully 
     integrated to accommodate an enormous matrix of material 
     which is highly likely to yield meaningful results.
       2. There are no known alternative means to achieve the 
     objectives of the proposal. The

[[Page S9784]]

     data do not exist and there are no alternative species to 
     test the hypotheses. Specifically, the use of Rhesus monkeys 
     seems inevitable to achieve the objectives.
       3. The animal care and welfare proposals meet all 
     requirements and US legal standards.
       However, we were sensitive to the concerns raised by the 
     public and within our committee about divisive opinions over 
     animal research. We were reminded that NASA has been a leader 
     in bioethics and a driver for raising the standards of 
     biomedical research. Therefore, we strongly urge NASA to 
     devise and implement a bioethics review policy for animal 
     experimentation to include participation of a professional 
     bioethicist. This group should begin its activities before 
     Bion 12 is activated. We believe it is not morally justified 
     to proceed otherwise. We challenge NASA to raise existing 
     standards by this new policy and thereby continue leadership 
     in the realm of bioethics.
       I thank you for the honor to chair this group and on their 
     behalf I thank you for the opportunity to serve.
           Sincerely,

                                        Ronald C. Merrell, MD,

                                   Lampman Professor and Chairman,
     Department of Surgery.
                                                                    ____


                        Bion Task Force Charter

       The charter of the BTF is to provide advice and 
     recommendations to the NASA Administrator on whether NASA 
     should continue to participate in the joint U.S.-French-
     Russian Bion Program. Specific activities will include the 
     following:
       (1) Review the integrity of the science plan for the 
     mission;
       (2) Assure that there are no alternative means for 
     obtaining the information provided by these experiments; and
       (3) Review the Bion Program for ethical and humane animal 
     treatment during all phases of the mission.
       Membership is comprised of distinguished individuals with 
     expertise in medicine, biomedical research, ethics and the 
     humane care and treatment of animals.
       The BTF will report to the NASA Advisory Council (NAC), and 
     will be staffed by the Office of Life and Microgravity 
     Sciences and Applications.
       The BTF is expected to submit its report with 
     recommendations to the NAC in July 1996.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I do not think we need to say more about 
this. It is very clear that the scientific community says we need it. 
We can find out things on monkeys operating under the legal and ethical 
standards that we cannot find out when we send humans into space, and 
we are far better testing on monkeys under the ethical standards that 
are imposed what the impacts of weightlessness is.
  I cannot understand all of the scientific jargon in the letters. But 
I can read the headlines. And the headlines from these letters are from 
the scientific community supported by the Association of American 
Universities, the Land-Grant Colleges, and the Association of American 
Medical Colleges which say that we need this information. Are we to 
substitute our scientific judgment for theirs? I happen to think 
personally that would be the height of arrogance to say that we know 
more about science than the professionals, the great leading scientific 
minds and institutions of higher education around the country.
  That is why I hope, Mr. President, that an overwhelming bipartisan 
majority of this body will join me in rejecting the motion to table.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I would like to continue this debate by first thanking 
the Senator from New Hampshire. I am very pleased to be working jointly 
with him and several other Senators on this matter. I believe that is 
important to pursue matters legislatively when there is unusual 
agreement on both sides of the aisle. And in this case there is that 
agreement between many of us on both sides of the aisle that this 
program needs to be reevaluated. I want to add a little bit to what the 
Senator from New Hampshire has said.
  My colleague from New Hampshire and I are moving to table the 
committee amendment which would strike language that passed the House 
as an amendment to the VA-HUD appropriations bill on June 26, 1996 by a 
vote of 244 to 171. The amendment was sponsored by Representatives 
Roemer and Ganske. The Senate Appropriations Committee, in preparing 
the VA-HUD bill for the floor, has recommended that this language be 
struck from the bill. The language would explicitly prohibit the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA] from expending any 
funds on the Bion 11 and Bion 12 missions. I believe that the 
committee's amendment to strike this language should not prevail.

  That is why the Senator from New Hampshire, I, and others will move 
to table. As I said, Mr. President, this move to save this money passed 
on a bipartisan basis in the House and in this body. It has the support 
of not only the Senator from New Hampshire and myself but also the 
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], the Senator from North Carolina 
[Mr. Helms], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], and the Senator 
from New York [Mr. D'Amato].
  As the Senator from New Hampshire indicated, it would be pretty hard 
to come up with a more diverse group of Senators from a political point 
of view than that combination.
  So what is this all about?
  Under this program, NASA transfers money to Russia to launch the Bion 
11 and Bion 12 capsules, and also funds United States researchers to be 
involved in designing the experiments and interpreting the results. The 
Bion Program gets its name from the small crewless Russian Bion 
satellite it uses to launch biological experiments into near-Earth 
orbits to study the physiological effects of space flight. Since 1973, 
Russia has launched 10 Bion satellites. The last was done with NASA 
participation for space flights of between 5 and 22 days.
  In fiscal year 1993, $35.1 billion was appropriated to support this 
whole program. At present, $15.5 million remains in the Bion account 
for the next two flights.
  So when the Senator from Missouri correctly points out that a little 
over $6 million will be involved in terms of this fiscal year, there is 
still more to come--and still more in my view and in the view of the 
Senator from New Hampshire to be wasted if we do not take the steps 
that we recommend today.
  Bion 11 and Bion 12 are the last of these flight missions, scheduled 
to fly in October 1996 and July 1998 respectively with United States, 
French, and Russian participation. Two Russian-owned rhesus monkeys 
will fly on each of the missions, scheduled to last 14 days, to study 
the effects of microgravity on bone loss, muscle deterioration, and 
balance.
  I oppose the committee amendment to strike the Roemer-Ganske language 
because I believe that these funds could be allocated for higher 
priority science at NASA or preferably for deficit reduction. I am also 
concerned that the scientific justification for the program is 
questionable and the results redundant, given that NASA has both 
previous Bion experiment data and significant human data on the effects 
of space flight. Since the Apollo missions humans have stayed in space 
for months at a time, and on July 16, 1996, Shannon Lucid set the U.S. 
record for the longest space flight aboard the space station Mir at 115 
days, and as of last Friday has now spent 5 months orbiting the Earth. 
There is substantial information and data with regard to the humans 
involved, which is obviously our ultimate concern. In addition, Mr. 
President, the last Columbia shuttle mission, which lasted 17 days, 
included an experiment similar to those proposed for Bion and in that 
case was done on actual human astronauts.

  The termination of expenditures on the Bion Program is supported by a 
coalition of taxpayer and animal welfare groups, not simply animal 
welfare groups. It includes Citizens Against Government Waste and 
Taxpayers for Common Cause, who have found a common ground on this 
issue and believe that the money can be saved from these missions.
  Mr. President, the Bion Program, to quote, according to the February 
1996 Bion 11/12 Science Assessment, is ``very important for future 
long-term manned space flights and life on a space station.''
  Let me emphasize this statement. It says the Bion Program, and 
arguably NASA's entire life sciences program, exists to support the 
continuation of the pursuit of long-term manned space flight and the 
development of the space station.
  That is really the context in which we should be evaluating Bion and 
NASA's continued participation in it. It is not simply a crusade of 
animal rights activists, as proponents would have you believe and as 
the Senator

[[Page S9785]]

from Missouri at least suggested in his remarks. There is much more 
involved for those of us who are concerned about waste in Government, 
and I think that includes everyone in this body.
  Of course, there may be issues pertaining to humane treatment and the 
future of the Bion protocol, but for the Members of this body who do 
not support the space station for fiscal reasons--and there are a 
number of Senators, including myself--Bion is really an outgrowth of 
space station development and for that reason, as well, ought to be 
terminated for fiscal reasons.
  For those who support manned space flight, I believe that the 
research which will be conducted on Bion 11 and 12, despite the Bion 
Program having cleared a fourth reevaluation of the experiments, is 
arguably duplicative. So it may well be something that standing alone 
can be argued to have merit, but if it is already adequately being 
done, it is still duplicative and it is still wasteful.
  I say this despite the fact that individuals from two very well-
respected research institutions in my State of Wisconsin, Marquette 
University and the Medical College of Wisconsin, have participated in 
the Bion Program and one of the individuals actually will be directly 
involved in interpreting data from Bion 11.
  I ask those in this body who support manned space flight to ask 
themselves this question: Despite the scientific merit of the study 
design, will the termination of the Bion 11 and 12 flights keep the 
United States from sending astronauts into space if we cannot find the 
mechanisms behind bone calcium loss and the deterioration of muscles 
that help humans fight gravity and stand upright? The answer is 
obvious. It is resounding. It is an empirical no. This will not make 
the difference.
  So the proponents of this program then make four primary arguments in 
support of the continuation of Bion. Let me just mention what their 
arguments are and respond briefly. First, they say the scientific and 
humane concerns are overblown and have been addressed.

  Second, they say the Bion Program results are important for manned 
space flight.
  Third, they say we are likely to get useful domestic byproducts from 
Bion research for osteoporosis and other disease sufferers.
  Finally, they say with regard to the fiscal issues that the savings 
figures are not savings at all. I will try to address all of these, and 
of course some of this has already been addressed by the Senator from 
New Hampshire, but I want to add to it.
  I think the strongest argument against the Bion missions is the 
question of whether or not the experiments are redundant, which, of 
course, speaks to their importance to manned space flight. That is a 
distinct question from whether or not the scientific study methods and 
the experiment design will produce legitimate and scientifically valid 
results.
  Let me say a bit about them. Four of the rookie astronauts from the 
July 7, 1996, shuttle Columbia mission, which had a total crew of 
seven, participated both prior, during, and after the flight as, in 
effect, human guinea pigs in the study on the effect of human space 
travel on the body.
  Within an hour of touchdown, as reported on July 8, 1996, by the 
Chicago Tribune, ``The four astronauts who had endured medical poking 
and prodding in orbit were in a clinic at Kennedy Space Center 
undergoing painful muscle biopsies and other tests. NASA wanted to 
examine the men before their bodies had adjusted to gravity.''
  The Houston Chronicle also provided additional detail on the mission 
on July 8, 1996. NASA ``billed the mission as a preview of its 
operations aboard the U.S.-led international space station.''
  Following landing, the Chronicle continues, ``The crew were ushered 
into medical facilities at Kennedy for evaluation of their muscle, 
skeletal and respiratory and balance systems. The test included 
biopsies of their calf muscles with large gauge needles and full body 
scans with a magnetic resonance imaging device.''
  So the contention of the supporters of Bion has been that the Bion 
tests are too invasive to be done on humans and thus should be done on 
rhesus monkeys. As Charles Brady, a physician and one of the rookie 
astronauts, stated about the test as reported in the Orlando Sentinal 
on July 7, 1996: ``Having had to subject many patients to things I 
wouldn't rather do at the time, I think it is appropriate that I have 
to go through with it.''
  Now, why do I provide all this detail on the recent Columbia mission 
experiments on astronauts? It is because NASA's real justification for 
the Bion experiments is not that they are collecting data from the 
rhesus monkeys they are not collecting from astronauts. They are. It is 
that they feel that the monkey studies will help them better interpret 
the changes in humans from the biopsy studies and the studies in the 
noninvasive tests they conducted on the Columbia astronauts. The 
astronauts' biopsies are limited in size, and allegedly the Bion 
monkeys could provide more samples from more muscles. The Bion monkeys 
will provide bone biopsies, to which astronauts would not submit, and 
the Bion monkeys' results will be compared with the astronauts' 
results.
  Why do this? Because those involved in the experiments want to 
confirm that, indeed, the same changes occur in immobile rhesus monkeys 
that occur in reasonably active astronauts. What does this say in 
response to those who argue that these tests are not really that 
invasive and should proceed on rhesus monkeys.

  But to return to the main point, Mr. President, this is research 
designed to confirm that what we know about the body, that what we know 
about the effect of space flight on the body is indeed what we already 
know. We already know it. And this apparently is just an attempt to 
spend some of our tax dollars to confirm it.
  I am concerned about this, given the amount that has already been 
spent to collect the astronaut data. The Rocky Mountain News reported 
on June 21, 1996, that the Columbia shuttle astronaut study on the 
effect of space travel on the human body cost $138 million. And this 
expenditure on the rhesus monkeys procedures will simply add to that 
figure, I think that is unnecessarily, and would be redundant.
  Let me return to the second issue. The second issue I want to address 
is the issue of humane treatment, because Senators will likely hear 
that the Bion experiment animal treatment protocol has been reviewed 
several times--most recently in early July 1996.
  In April 1996 NASA Administrator Dan Goldin set up an independent 
panel, chaired by the head of surgery at Yale, Dr. Ronald Merrell, to 
review the care and treatment of the Bion monkeys, the fourth such 
review. But, as the Bion launch is scheduled for October 1996, and the 
panel could not meet until July 1, the surgical procedures to implant 
monitoring wires and the steel cranial caps on the monkeys went ahead 
in Kazakhstan in June at the Institute for Biomedical Problems in 
Moscow. NASA was then in the awkward position of agreeing to allow the 
Russians to proceed with the surgery even though it had not yet decided 
to support the mission.
  What happened in the interim? The House agreed overwhelmingly on a 
bipartisan vote to prohibit the continued spending of NASA funds on 
Bion.
  The independent panel met on July 1, 1996 and issued a letter the day 
after the meeting. The letter does say that the proposed science will 
``likely yield meaningful results,'' the animal welfare proposal meets 
``U.S. legal standards,'' and that rhesus monkeys are appropriate 
surrogate human animal subject for these types of experiments.
  I am concerned the previous argument by the Senator from Missouri did 
not include in his verbal statement, although he may have included it 
in the Record, the rest of the story, if you will, the rest of the 
letter.
  I am concerned by how the Merrell panel letter concludes:

       However, we were sensitive to the concerns raised by the 
     public and within our committee about divisive opinions over 
     animal research. . . . Therefore, we strongly urge NASA to 
     devise and implement a bioethics review policy for animal 
     experimentation to include participation of a professional 
     bioethicist. This group should begin its activities before 
     Bion 12 is activated. We believe it is not morally justified 
     to proceed otherwise.

  The conclusion of the Merrell panel has led some to believe that the 
panel really met just for show, and that the

[[Page S9786]]

pressure of having already implanted wires in the monkeys made the 
recommendations what they were. As the associate director for Life 
Sciences at the Ames Research Center was reported as having said in a 
July 12, 1996, Science article announcing the Merrell panel decision 
and reporting the House vote ``we have to turn this [House vote] around 
in the Senate.''
  On July 23, 1996 I received a letter in support of the Bion project 
from the Americans for Medical Progress Educational Foundation. The 
letter makes several arguments on the need for continuation of Bion, 
most which I have previously described, but adds an additional one that 
I would like to share with colleagues--``the animal subjects in Bion 
are treated well and, upon return, will be retired in Russia and 
idolized as space heroes.'' I am sure the monkeys are very excited 
about that, but I am not certain that the authors realized how 
concerning and bizarre that statement sounds, particularly as a 
justification for spending $15 million over the next 2 fiscal years. 
Odder still, is that the statement has some basis in fact. NASA staff, 
in meeting with my staff, described that the chairs in which the 
monkeys are restrained are actually lined with bear fur, the same as 
the seats of the Russian cosmonauts. This is done because the Russian 
cosmonauts believe such seat covering is thought to be more 
comfortable.
  Finally, I believe that question about whether the Russians might be 
able to financially support these missions without United States 
involvement is unclear. On May 24, 1996, in a Science magazine article 
on the Bion project, the director of biomedical and life sciences at 
NASA is quoted as saying ``if NASA were to pull out, Russia could 
proceed on its own. If they can afford to do it, they will. It's their 
animals and their capsule.'' The July 12, 1996, Science paints a 
different picture. Quoting the head of the Bion Program at the 
Institute for Biomedical Problems in Moscow, Science reports that he is 
concerned about the fate of Bion 12. ``Given Russia's cash strapped 
space program,'' he says, ``if any partner pulled out it would pose a 
serious problem.''

  In the end, either situation concerns me and I think it concerns the 
Senator from New Hampshire and the rest of us who are working on this. 
I believe it confirms why colleagues should oppose the committee 
amendment and table it. If Russia can afford this experiment, then 
Russia should conduct it. If Russia can't support it, and the United 
States is funding the lion's share of the program, then we should not 
proceed with a program about which there are serious lingering concerns 
about humane treatment of the animal subjects as well as the necessity 
for the program. The Merrell panel specifically calls for an additional 
ethicist to be added to the research team, and I believe casts doubt on 
Bion 11. I can assure Senators that if we ignore the action of the 
House, we will be asked to terminate Bion 12 next year. Instead, I 
think we should act now to end our involvement and to reinstate the 
House-passed language.
  Everyone knows the Federal budget has constant pressure from numerous 
competing needs, and NASA itself is facing significant pressures. For 
example, last Friday's--August 30, 1996--Washington Post reported that 
there is an ongoing dialog among top officials at Kennedy Space Center 
about significant civil service cuts that may number as many as 1,445 
people with 547 layoffs at that site which now employs approximately 
2,100 Federal workers. Given those kind of pressures, this project 
makes little sense. It cannot be fiscally justified.
  I thank the Senator from New Hampshire and urge my colleagues to 
support the motion to table, which will have the effect of supporting 
the committee amendment and opposing spending additional dollars on the 
Bion Program.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by my friends from New Hampshire and Wisconsin, and I want to 
speak in support of the Bion mission.
  We are singling out a particular area of animal research because it 
happens to be on a space flight, I guess, because it happens to be up 
there a little bit above the atmosphere, going around, where we have a 
unique opportunity to do some of this research in the microgravity 
environment of near-Earth space. We are not talking about doing away 
with all animal research, as I understand it. Yet, we have hundreds and 
hundreds and hundreds of thousands of animal research projects with 
animals involved in medical research right here on Earth.
  My distinguished colleague from New Hampshire said a while ago, why 
do we need these monkeys up there because we have some 38 years of 
human experience in space? We do have that kind of experience. But I 
also submit we have hundreds of thousands of years of human experience 
right here on Earth and we still find the need to do medical research 
here on Earth and use animals to do that medical research.
  So, if we are just against medical research using animals, that is 
one thing. But to say that because we happen to be up here a little 
distance off the Earth's surface, we are now going to prohibit it up 
there, or to say the money spent, the comparatively small amount of 
money being spent on this is going to be cut out, I just think flies in 
the face of what our experience has been with animal research.
  What am I talking about? Here on Earth we now have open heart 
operations. I am a frustrated doctor at heart. I started out wanting to 
be a doctor years ago. I got sidetracked by World War II. But when I 
was in Houston with the astronaut program down there, Mike DeBakey was 
a good friend of ours. I used to go in and watch him operate. Do you 
know what all those operations were prefaced on? They prefaced them on 
animal experiments. The heart operation, the valve replacements and the 
operations of heart replacement, all were done with animal experiments 
ahead of time.
  We could go on and on. For all the drug tests that we have in this 
country--I do not mean drug tests to see if people are using drugs, I 
mean drugs that are antibiotics and so on that we use--we preface our 
human use by making experiments on animals. I am sure the whole medical 
community would be up in arms if we tried to knock all of that out.
  We try out vaccines on animals. We try out bone research on things 
that will make bones knit together better. We do that in animal 
research. We do that in eye research, we did corneal transplants on 
animals--I believe it was rabbits, as I recall --before we did it on 
human beings. We did that because it is safer for people to have that 
kind of experiment.
  We were concerned these experiments be done humanely, so we passed 
the Animal Welfare Act. It is the law that sets the standards of how we 
permit animal research to be done in this country, so it is done 
humanely. Those rules are basically the rules that we follow and also, 
as I understand it, the Russians follow, or are following now. I am the 
first to say some of the things we heard early on about the Bion 
project, I questioned about whether it was being done properly or not. 
But those things are corrected if they ever were true. They are being 
corrected and they are being monitored very, very closely.
  The point is, these Bion flights represent an effective approach to 
conducting very important biomedical research. To knock this out just 
because the laboratory happens to be up here weightless, going around 
in microgravity up a little bit off the Earth's surface here, to knock 
it out because it is part of the space program and ignore all of the 
other hundreds of thousands of animal research projects going on, I do 
not think makes much sense.
  Bion research is fundamental, peer-reviewed research at the center of 
NASA's program for exploring how the body changes in microgravity, and 
there are a lot of changes. NASA and Russia have cooperated on Bion 
missions for 20 years now. This is not something just starting up. We 
have been at this for a long time. The fact is, we have used the Bion 
spacecraft to produce major findings on space flight and health.
  Mr. President, the amendment's proponents argue that the Bion 
missions are not necessary because we have already sent people in orbit 
and, therefore, we can study the effects of microgravity directly on 
people who have already flown. Obviously, we know people have survived 
space flight, but this

[[Page S9787]]

does not mean we know what happens in our bodies. We are still trying 
to find out what the basic changes in the body are that occur in 
microgravity that give us some of the results that we get. Just as 
researchers on the ground sometimes need to use animal models by the 
hundreds of thousands all over the country, researchers in space must 
use animals as well.
  The plain fact is that for some types of research, animals are better 
subjects than people. For one thing, human astronauts are not 
genetically uniform. Compared to lab animals, there is a lot more 
natural variability in the human population from both environmental and 
genetic factors. With the small sample sizes and brief time periods 
inherent in most space flight opportunities, more reliable baselines 
for certain measurements can be obtained using lab animals.
  Another benefit is that a lab animal's diet can be more easily 
controlled than an astronaut's. Astronauts up there for 14 days, 17 
days, as the STS-78 mission, get a little cranky when you tell them 
they have to eat the same pellets for 14 days, or whatever it is you 
want the animals to eat to control its diet and dietary intake.
  Given the fact lab animals fulfill a vital role in microgravity 
research, it is imperative that these animals be treated in a humane 
way, and I agree with that 100 percent. All people involved with the 
Bion Program should be held accountable for the animals' welfare, and 
they are. The animals' care and well-being is maintained before and 
during flight. Following the flight, the animals are returned to the 
Russian breeding colony, or another suitable habitat, where they are 
maintained humanely for the remainder of their natural lives. This 
program has been reviewed--I point this out very specifically--this 
program has been reviewed by independent experts who have concluded 
that it is legitimate science performed in a humane manner.
  Several months back, Dr. Jane Goodall, who is famous for her primate 
experiences in Africa along Lake Tanganyika in Africa--she is known all 
over the world, and I have known her a number of years--contacted me 
about her concerns in this regard, about the Bion Program specifically. 
I relayed these concerns both by telephone and letter to NASA 
Administrator Dan Goldin, who established an independent task force to 
review the Bion project. I want to quote from a letter the task force 
wrote to the chairman of the NASA advisory council dated July 2, 1996. 
I think the letter was entered into the Record a little while ago by 
Senator Bond. The task force unanimously recommended the Bion project 
proceed with the following findings:

       (1) The quality of science proposed . . . is excellent. It 
     has been reviewed by peers in a very thorough and 
     repeated manner and has withstood analysis for nearly a 
     decade.
       (2) There are no known alternative means to achieve the 
     objectives of the proposal.
       (3) The animal care and welfare proposals meet all 
     requirements and--

  Listen to this--

     and U.S. legal standards.

  In other words, the Bion project is being conducted under our Animal 
Welfare Act, under the same guidelines we have for our own research 
laboratories in this country.
  In addition, the task force recommended NASA devise and implement a 
bioethics review concerning their policies for animal experimentation 
and that this review include participation by a professional 
bioethicist. Not only did Mr. Goldin accept this recommendation, but 
such a task force review is getting underway with not one but four 
bioethicists, in addition to other veterinarians and researchers.
  Mr. President, NASA has made the space environment seem almost 
commonplace. It has been an amazingly successful program. We see videos 
of astronauts floating in the space shuttle, and it looks like a lot of 
fun, and it is. But along with that goes an awful lot of research. It 
is a tremendous amount of research. That is the only reason we have the 
program, is to do basic research, not to see whether we can go up there 
and get back now, but to do basic research in orbit.
  It is easy to forget just what a foreign and challenging environment 
space is. Zero gravity is unique, not just in the history of human 
experience, but in the history of life itself. Few of us have been able 
to experience weightlessness, and we are the first people to have done 
that in the some 4.5-billion-year history of life on Earth. Nothing in 
our evolutionary history prepares us for being weightless.
  But here is what we find after people are up there weightless for a 
period of time:
  The bones begin to lose some of their mass. Calcium content comes out 
of the bones;
  Muscles atrophy, they get less capable;
  The body's system for maintaining balance begins to change;
  Coordination is reduced;
  The immune system becomes less effective;
  Sleep patterns and the body's natural clock are affected. And that is 
just for starters.
  Some of my colleagues may find this list has a very, very familiar 
ring to it, and I talked about this in more detail on the floor 
yesterday. I know it has a familiar ring to me. It is not because I 
have been in orbit, but because reduced muscle mass, bones becoming 
more fragile, deteriorated balance and coordination, reduced immune 
efficiency and sleep disturbances are changes that occur with the 
normal aging process here on Earth, as well as what happens on a space 
flight.
  What are the mechanisms for these changes? Are the same mechanisms in 
play among the aging on Earth and the astronauts in orbit? Would an 
older astronaut experience slower or faster deconditioning on orbit? 
Are these changes reversible in space by some artificial means or here 
on Earth for those of our elderly citizens, some 44 million, almost, 
above the age of 60, as I pointed out yesterday? If so, then how do we 
make these changes reversible for benefit right here on Earth?
  We do not know the answers to these questions, and that is the 
challenge. But, Mr. President, that is also the opportunity and that is 
why the Bion missions are so important, because when we identify the 
underlying mechanisms by which the body adapts to space, we may also 
identify much, much more.

  What if this research leads to new insights on how to treat 
osteoporosis? Not only would that make the lives of thousands of 
elderly people more enjoyable, it would save countless millions of 
dollars in health care costs.
  A better understanding of balance and vestibular changes in the 
elderly could help prevent falls and avoid debilitating injuries for 
elderly people. That is another area.
  The immune system changes. Think what happens if we can just figure 
out what the common ground is between what happens to people in space 
over a lengthy period of time as the immune system goes downhill, 
becomes less effective and in the elderly here on Earth whose immune 
systems normally with old age become less effective. If we could find 
out by comparing back and forth what causes that kind of a mechanism, 
can we trigger it off artificially, is this a new approach to AIDS, is 
it something we can learn here that is a new approach to cancer?
  We do not know, but that is the purpose of research, to find out 
exactly some of those answers that are of benefit not only in space but 
will have direct application to people's lives right here on Earth.
  I am not trying to say that the Bion missions are the key to the 
fountain of youth. Far from it. But it is basic research on processes 
analogous to aging that can only be performed on orbit, and we don't 
know where it will lead. But if there is one thing we know from our 
whole U.S. experience in supporting basic research throughout our 
history, it is that money spent in this area normally has a way of 
paying off beyond anything we normally see at the outset.
  I think we owe it to our children and to our grandchildren to find 
the answers as best we can to some of these things and the opportunity 
we have to do that.
  Mr. President, my colleagues have heard me speak in detail about the 
value of basic research and how we do not always know what benefits 
will come from such research. But let me just talk very briefly about 
some of the benefits and technology spinoffs that have come out of the 
Bion Program to date.

[[Page S9788]]

  Doctors at the University of California at San Francisco are using 
the biosensors and telemetry technology developed for the Bion Program 
to monitor the condition of fetuses with life threatening conditions. 
For some congenital medical conditions, doctors can more safely and 
effectively operate on fetuses in the womb. Such surgery was much 
riskier before this sensor technology was available.
  A computerized video system developed to test the behavioral 
performance of Bion monkeys is now being used to teach learning 
disabled children.
  A device to noninvasively test bone strength was proven effective in 
Bion monkeys and is now commercially available to assess the condition 
of human patients suffering osteoporosis and other bone diseases.
  While conducting ground-based research in preparation for a Bion 
mission, Dr. Danny Riley of the Medical College of Wisconsin discovered 
a staining technique that surgeons can use to more accurately reconnect 
the peripheral nerves in severed limbs. And this discovery did not 
involve any amputation of animals' limbs to do that research. In the 
past, the only markers surgeons have had for accurately rejoining the 
peripheral nerves have been the positions and size of the nerve axons. 
Dr. Riley discovered a staining technique that stains sensory axons but 
not motor axons. Not only is this a boost for neurological research, 
but it will improve the successful prospects for reattaching limbs that 
have been severed.
  Mr. President, to conclude--I gave a more lengthy statement yesterday 
in detail of some of these areas--but to conclude, Bion research is 
important. It is thoroughly reviewed research. It is conducted 
humanely. It presents a real opportunity for new insights into the 
human body every bit as much as medical research right here on the 
surface of the Earth.
  We have a new environment up here. It is the microgravity of space 
flight. It offers a whole new opportunity to do animal research ahead 
of the human beings perhaps doing the same thing later on. As I said, 
initially we do those same things right here on Earth with regard to 
all sorts of experiments that have led to heart operations, drug tests, 
new vaccines, bone research, eye research, and so on, that we do here 
on Earth. And I see no reason whatsoever why we should knock this out 
when it is a very, very valuable program.
  So, Mr. President, I hope that we will defeat this amendment and I 
hope our colleagues will see the wisdom of going in that direction 
also. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the Smith motion. A 
while ago, the chairman of this subcommittee on appropriations said 
that we run into a lot of things in this business, and especially here 
on the floor of the U.S. Senate, that we do not quite understand. I 
chair the Subcommittee on Science, Technology and, of course, Space, 
and NASA. That is the committee that provides the authorization for 
NASA.

  So I state my support for the Bion Program and, of course, this 
appropriations here which rejects the House language that prohibits the 
funding of the Bion 11 and 12 missions. In science and technology we 
run into a lot of things that we do not quite understand because I do 
not think there are very many of us on this floor that are scientists.
  The Bion Program is an important cooperative space venture between 
the United States, Russian, and French space agencies for international 
biomedical research using Russian-provided support systems, their 
spacecraft, payload and, of course, the rhesus monkeys. It is a cost-
effective program. It is based on sound science. It has been peer-
reviewed, I think, four times. I could be wrong, but I think four 
times. And every time they have come away with the recommendation that 
the research should move forward.
  Some of the results are likely to provide insights into understanding 
complex physiological processes which occur during the normal aging 
process or are involved in Earth-based diseases such as anemia, 
osteoporosis, muscular atrophy and the immune system dysfunction.
  In Billings, MT, the Deaconess Research Institute there has the 
largest data base on osteoporosis in women that there is in the 
country. Because of a stable population in my town of Billings, MT, 
they have been able to move forward on a lot of this research. But the 
research that is done in space becomes evermore important. Indeed, the 
first 10 missions of the Bion Program have already benefited our lives 
through technological spinoffs, such as the development of devices to 
monitor human fetuses following life-saving surgery and to 
noninvasively test bone strength in patients suffering from bone 
diseases. These benefits to our health and well-being are an addition 
to the knowledge gained to help NASA protect the health and safety of 
our space travelers.
  Yes, there are those who would like to scrap the space program 
altogether. I am not one of those. I am saying that this society, this 
American society, in fact the unique American is a person that is 
always reaching out, going into the unknown, exploring the unknown. 
When we quit doing that, then we lose a part of ourselves.
  Basically, I have a hunch that this amendment is not really about 
NASA. It is an anti-animal research amendment. The animal welfare 
groups have targeted the Bion project for elimination. They claim that 
research is not necessary and it is inhumane and it wastes the 
taxpayers' money. And all of that could not be further from the truth.
  Animal welfare groups are waging an all-out campaign against the 
program simply because four Russian rhesus monkeys are scheduled to be 
used in the Bion 11 and 12 missions. Because of this continued 
pressure, the Bion Program has been continuously scrutinized and it has 
been continuously peer-reviewed. The experiments were peer-reviewed in 
1988, 1992, and again in 1993.
  In December 1995 the Administrator of NASA, Daniel Goldin, again 
requested an external panel of scientists to review the research. And 
the 12-person panel of independent experts strongly recommended that 
NASA proceed with the remaining Bion missions. As in the previous 
reviews, their findings reconfirmed the importance of the program and 
its scientific merit. The panel concluded that the science is 
excellent; rhesus monkeys are the appropriate species to address the 
scientific objectives; and there are no alternative means for obtaining 
the essential information that will be gained from this research.

  So the Bion Program is being debated here because the most radical 
animal rights activists have elevated their own agenda above the 
interests of good science and, further, above the lives of human 
beings.
  I think this amendment, if it is passed, will have very serious 
repercussions on other Federal agencies. I think these agencies include 
the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the 
Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, and the Veterans' 
Administration. Their support for research in the biomedical and life 
sciences can also be jeopardized by the outcome of this vote 
today. There is a well-established scientific process leading to awards 
of Federal support. Being chairman of that committee, we deal with this 
every day. The proposed experiments undergo peer review by experts, and 
this includes the review of the use and care of animals that are used 
in research programs. So this is nothing new to the authorizing 
committee that I chair.

  This amendment contradicts existing Federal policies, contradicts the 
procedures for scientific peer review and laboratory animal welfare 
that has already been put in place by Congress. It sends a message that 
Members of Congress, not scientists, are the best judge of the quality 
of the science projects. I, therefore, challenge any Members of this 
body, as certain projects come before us, especially in the area of 
research science and science development, that if everybody is an 
expert on everything that we talked about and allocated money to do 
research for, I would really be surprised. But we do have a peer review 
system, and, thus, if the passage of this amendment were successful, it 
would undermine the

[[Page S9789]]

whole foundation that has been assumed on scientific research.
  Animal research plays an integral part in all of our lives. It has 
been said that without animal research, most, if not all, of the 
medical advances in the last century might never have occurred. For 
example, we could still have polio, and today nearly 38 million 
Americans would be at risk of death from a heart attack, stroke, kidney 
failure, for the lack of medication to control their high blood 
pressure. I could go on and on. I am getting more of an education in 
that field all the time. I happen to be a very proud father of a doctor 
who graduates medical school next spring. So I have a feeling that my 
education is going to continue until they put me in the ground, so to 
speak.
  The antianimal research amendment forces NASA to withdraw from a 
signed contract with the other nations--Russia and France. It derails 
scientific peer review and thwarts the Animal Welfare Act. Is this the 
message, I ask this body, that we want to send? Allowing a single 
interest group that totally opposes animal research to dictate NASA's 
or other Government agencies' research goals cannot be tolerated. I 
have seen these groups work. Sometimes they have a less-than-candid 
view of what has to happen as far as science and technology is all 
about just to further their own cause.
  So, Mr. President, the Bion Program is worthy. The amendment is not 
truly about the merits of research or the costs, because the costs are 
nothing. What it is about is the welfare of animals being used for 
research. I support appropriate procedures to protect the safety and 
well-being of animals, but this amendment is simply inappropriate.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator withhold for a second?
  Mr. BENNETT. Yes, I am pleased to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I bring to the Presiding Officer's 
attention, and to my colleagues' in the Senate, I believe we are moving 
at a good pace in this debate. I see on the floor our colleague from 
Tennessee, Dr. Frist, who wants to speak on this. I do, as well. I 
encourage anybody else who wishes to speak, to please come to the floor 
so we can move to concluding this debate before the respective caucus. 
I think this has been an outstanding discussion.

  Mr. BOND. I thank my colleague from Maryland for pointing that out. I 
hope if there are others--particularly proponents of the motion to 
strike--they will come down by the time the Senator from Maryland is 
prepared to talk. I have asked her if she will conclude comments on 
this side. I think that the Senator from New Hampshire wants to close 
and then make the tabling motion. But I sincerely hope that we can wrap 
this up by noon. The Senator from South Carolina would like to speak 
for 3 minutes on this measure. I hope we can conclude this debate by 
noon, or at least by 12:30, and then have the tabling motion. We will 
discuss with the leadership when that vote will occur.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes, because, as I understand it, when the motion to 
table is made, isn't the vote immediate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in a nondebatable posture at that 
point, that is correct.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Must the vote occur immediately, or could it be delayed 
after the party conferences?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Unless the Members would seek a unanimous 
consent agreement to schedule it for a different time.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. While the Senator from Utah is speaking, perhaps we can 
talk with the leaders about how they wish to handle the vote. I believe 
the Democratic leader wishes it to be after the conference.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator from Maryland. I will defer to our 
leadership. I understand from the Senator from New Hampshire that there 
are no further speakers on his side. So we will hear from the speakers 
who are now lined up to speak in opposition to that tabling motion. 
Then we will, after they have spoken, ask the Senator from New 
Hampshire to proceed and make the tabling motion, perhaps, with a 
unanimous consent request that the vote be postponed until a time 
certain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I was particularly enlightened by the 
comments of the Senator from Ohio, who has a unique perspective on this 
particular issue. As I have noted here before, I come as the successor 
to Senator Jake Garn, who also has a unique perspective on this issue, 
and who, if he were still in the Senate, would be speaking out very 
strongly in favor of the committee position.
  We are talking about America's space effort, America's interest in 
exploring in space, and we made the decision, as a country, to put 
humans into space for a prolonged period of time at some point in the 
future. It makes no sense to fund a program and put humans into space 
and not to do the research necessary to understand what will happen to 
humans when they get there. That is essentially what the motion to 
table would do. It would say, yes, we will go ahead and fund the 
programs to put humans in space, but we will not fund the research to 
find out what will happen to them.
  We are told that we already know what will happen, that humans have 
stayed in space for 439 days. It is true that on the basis of that, we 
know what happens. They experience loss of bone mass and muscle 
deterioration, and brain and motor functioning is different. We know 
that space affects the spinal cord and bones, muscles and immune 
system, as well as the brain. But what we don't know is whether these 
effects are long-term, and whether the bone and muscle loss is 
permanent. We don't know that. Can the deterioration be counteracted in 
space? We don't know that. What else occurs that might not have 
occurred in 400 days that might occur for a longer period of time? We 
don't know that.

  We have an opportunity to find out by using animal experiments in 
space. Science doesn't tell us where the answers are. As we look at the 
great breakthroughs in science, they have come, sometimes, with hard 
research. They have sometimes come by complete chance, as people are 
looking for one thing and stumble across something else. But we do know 
that they never come if the research is not conducted and if people do 
not make an attempt to find out these answers.
  I won't repeat all of the arguments that have been made on the floor, 
because I think they have been very cogent. I do agree that the Senate 
is not the appropriate place to try to micromanage a scientific project 
when, in fact, it has been subjected to the amount of peer review and 
overall management guidance that this particular program has.
  The Senator from Ohio has quoted Dr. Ronald Merrell, the chairman of 
surgery from Yale, who is the scientist who has written to the NASA 
advisory council. I urge my colleagues to refer to those quotes. I 
would like to add just a few more to those which we have already seen. 
From the American Physiological Society, I have a letter that says:

       The research is scientifically necessary, important to 
     NASA's mission, and should be allowed to proceed.
       The Bion research is intended to expand what we know about 
     how space flight affects muscles, bones, balance, and 
     performance. While human beings have spent long periods of 
     time in space, it has not been possible to fully document the 
     changes to their bodies. In part that is because for their 
     own comfort and protection, astronauts take medications to 
     counteract space sickness and do intensive exercise to 
     overcome the harmful wasting effects of prolonged 
     weightlessness. These countermeasures make it hard to 
     determine exactly what is happening to their bodies. The Bion 
     11 and 12 experiments are intended to fill gaps in our 
     knowledge so that we can find better ways to counteract the 
     effects of weightlessness on the body.

  I found that interesting. I remember talking with our former 
colleague, Senator Garn, about the problems that he had both preparing 
for his space flight and some of the space sickness experiences he had 
while he was there. He took the countermeasures to which the letter 
that I quoted refers, and he was able to function properly. But that is 
something that had not occurred to me until this letter came in as a 
reason why we need to proceed with the animal research.

[[Page S9790]]

  From the American Society for Gravitational and Space Biology, I 
offer the following:

       To kill this program just as mankind embarks on permanent 
     presence in space would be a serious mistake.

  From the Association of American Universities, the National 
Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, and the 
Association of American Medical Colleges, I have this quote:

       We are concerned about the precedent this amendment sets in 
     terminating research that has been peer reviewed and approved 
     on the basis of scientific merits.

  That is another interesting thought where the Congress has authorized 
science to go forward. The science has been peer reviewed. It has been 
declared to be appropriate. Then for the Congress to come in and say, 
no, we do not like your peer reviews, we are not going to pay any 
attention to the scientists, we are going to override it, is, indeed, a 
bad precedent for us to set.
  Finally, from the Americans for Medical Progress Educational 
Foundation, this quote:

       Bion makes sense.
       (1) Scientifically it will yield critical knowledge of the 
     effects of space travel on human physiology. This knowledge 
     is essential for the safety of current and future space 
     travelers;
       (2) Financially, $14 million of the total $33 million has 
     already been spent. To halt in midstride would mean that all 
     of that money was wasted. More to the point, Russia has 
     funded the vast majority of the costs of all of these 
     projects. If the United States was to attempt to garner this 
     data on its own, the costs could exceed $.5 billion.

  In summary then, Mr. President, I am a supporter of the space 
program. I believe we should move ahead with our attempt to discover 
and explore in this final frontier. I do not believe that we should 
prepare the space program to send humans up into space without doing 
all of the appropriate research that we possibly can on the impact on 
human physiology of space travel. This program is the most intelligent, 
the most carefully charted, and the most financially responsible way 
for us to gather that data.
  For those reasons I support the committee's position.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the tabling motion and in 
support of the Bion research project.
  My perspective is a bit different than many of the people that you 
have heard from today in that we have talked this morning and debated 
this morning about animal research, about the use of various animals, 
notably monkeys and primates in research.
  I stand before you as one who has seen through my own picture window 
as a heart and lung transplant surgeon, as a heart specialist, as a 
lung specialist, as someone who spent the last 20 years of his life in 
the field of medicine, as one who has been a beneficiary of that 
research and seen the great benefits to mankind, to people throughout 
the world.
  My perspective is one of a scientist who has written over 100 papers 
that have been peer reviewed. I would like to come through the peer-
review process because I think it is not only critical to the way we 
address this fairly complex issue but one which I think the peer-review 
process and the importance it places on our review will go a long way 
to keep us, Members of Congress, from micromanaging the scientific 
process today.
  About 2 months ago I was in Tennessee, and someone came up to me and 
handed me a picture of a young 6-year-old boy. I did not recognize the 
boy, to be honest. But the two proud grandparents, I found out later, 
handed me the picture and were a little surprised I did not recognize 
him. But I did not recognize him because I had not seen him in 6 years. 
He was 6 years old. At 3 weeks of age I had done a heart transplant on 
that young boy when he was, I think, 20 or 21 days of age. Now he is 
alive today playing baseball and in the first grade. I talked to his 
parents actually just a couple of weeks ago.
  The research which allowed me to take the 5-week-old heart and put it 
in a 3-week-old individual that has allowed this little boy to be alive 
today came out of operations on monkeys, rhesus monkeys, and, yes, as a 
U.S. Senator I can tell you that I have operated on rhesus monkeys. I 
have done it in a humane way, and those were treated just like other 
patients--were given anesthesia and were protected. Safeguards were in 
place. But that little boy is alive today because I learned that 
procedure and helped to figure out that procedure based on operating on 
monkeys about 8 years ago.
  I can't help but think of a 60-year-old man today who I did a heart 
transplant on about probably 6 years ago who was kept alive for about 
32 days with an artificial heart. That artificial heart I had learned 
to implant and figured out the details of in animal research spending 
day after day operating and placing that device in animals before 
placing it into a human being who is alive today because of the 
technology and because of the scientific advances that were made 
because of animal research.
  I can't help but think about 1986 when I was engaged very directly in 
primate research doing heart-hung transplants on monkeys. Just 12 
months after doing those heart-lung transplants on monkeys in a humane 
way, I was able to transplant in a 21-year-old woman who had in-stage 
heart and lung disease, who underwent the first successful heart-lung 
transplant in the Southeast back in 1985.

  So you can see that I stand before you as someone who has had very 
direct experience in the benefits of this type of research. I say all 
of that because a lot of the rhetoric that has sprung around today of 
monkeys in space and getting monkeys off the taxpayers' backs we really 
need to put aside and engage this in a very serious and scientific way 
because this scientific research, I think, can be critical to the 
safety of human beings both in space but also ultimately in this 
country.
  Much has been said in terms of the peer-review process. Let me tell 
you as a scientist, as someone who has operated on monkeys, as someone 
who has taken that research to the human arena, I cannot stand before 
this body and before the American people and say that I, Bill Frist, a 
physician with about 16 years of medical training, can evaluate this 
specific research. So what do I do? I turn to my peers who are experts, 
who five times in the past through a peer-review process have looked at 
these specific projects and said that this is sound research, that this 
is important research, important research that needs to be carried out 
in this environment and elsewhere.
  We have to be very careful, I think, in this body before engaging in 
the micromanagement of the type of research that goes on in this 
country, or that will go on. The temptation is going to always be, I 
think, to rely upon what feels best to us as legislators, or to people 
who come before us. I think we have to be very careful, in setting 
national priorities, to rely upon the medical community, to rely upon 
the scientific community through that peer-review process.
  In that regard, much has been made already this morning of the fact 
that the Bion experiments have been peer reviewed five times for 
scientific merit. We have already talked about that. In December 1995 
an expert panel of scientists--the Bion Sience Assessment Panel--
conducted a review of the science which encompasses the United States 
and French portions of the experiments. We know that the Bion 
assessment panel--this was mentioned by the Senator from Wisconsin--
recommended certain procedural improvements in program management that 
overall the panel has commended since as meritorious and recommended 
that the Bion 11 and 12 missions proceed.
  In addition to this 1995 review, we had reviews of outside committees 
in 1988 and 1992 and 1993. In 1988, a panel convened by the American 
Institute of Biological Sciences reviewed and determined the scientific 
merit of the experimental proposal submitted in response to a NASA 
research announcement.
  In March 1992, a second independent review of the integrated United 
States-French set of flight experiments was conducted to assess 
continued relevance of rhesus experiments, and again they recommended 
that the rhesus project should continue. And in July 1993, an 
independent science critical design review gave the rhesus

[[Page S9791]]

project the authority to proceed with the transition to payload 
development.
  I did receive a letter from the Association of American Medical 
Colleges which most people know represents over 120 accredited U.S. 
medical schools, represents some 400 major teaching hospitals, 
represents 74 Veterans' Administration medical centers, 86 academic and 
professional societies representing 87,000 faculty members and the 
Nation's 67,000 medical students and 102,000 medical and surgical and 
other medical specialty residents.
  This letter basically says that ``the AAMC is deeply concerned about 
the precedent the House action sets in terminating research that has 
been reviewed and approved on the basis of scientific merit. The Bion 
Project has undergone repeated external expert review.''
  They close by saying that the AAMC, that is, the Association of 
American Medical Colleges, ``strongly supports the use of merit review 
to determine how limited Federal funds may most productively be spent 
for scientific research.''
  Again, a letter that has been quoted already this morning, from the 
president of the Association of American Universities, from the 
president of the National Association of State Universities and Land 
Grant Colleges, and from the president of the Association of American 
Medical Colleges reads: ``The Bion missions have been peer reviewed and 
approved by five independent panels over the past 8 years. The most 
recent panel found that the quality of science proposed is very high.''
  And let me underline this following part, that ``there are no known 
alternative means to achieve the objectives'' and that ``the animal 
care and welfare proposals meet all requirements of United States legal 
standards.''
  In closing, as I step back again as someone who has seen the benefits 
of science in primate research, as someone who has some experience with 
the peer review process, I would like to caution my fellow Members that 
we must be very careful in micromanaging biomedical research. That is 
why we have a peer review process, and that is why it works so well. So 
let us let that process work.
  I do hope my colleagues will support the continuation of the Bion 
Program for these reasons and resist that temptation to micromanage 
research which has also met the criteria of numerous peer reviews.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. Will the Senator yield me 3 minutes?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Absolutely.
  Mr. THURMOND. I wish to thank the able Senator.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 3666, the fiscal year 
1997 appropriations bill for the Department of the Veterans Affairs, 
Housing and Urban Development, and independent agencies. This is a 
broad measure which provides appropriations for a variety of programs. 
It funds veterans, public and assisted housing, environmental 
protection, NASA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and other 
programs. I commend the managers of this bill for their balanced 
approach in funding the many Government functions contained in this 
bill.

  Mr. President, let me note a few of the highlights of this bill. This 
bill reflects the intent of Congress of keeping Government costs under 
control. The total appropriation, $84.7 billion, is only a slight 
increase over last year's funding. However, it is $2.8 billion less 
than the President requested. Reductions to the President's request are 
primarily in administrative costs. In most program areas, for actual 
benefits, funding in this bill is above the President's request.
  I particularly support the committee's funding proposal for veterans 
programs. This bill provides $39 billion for veterans, which is an 
increase over last year's funding and above the President's request. 
These funds will adequately provide for veterans' compensation and 
pensions, medical care, and construction projects related to outpatient 
care, medical research, and veterans' cemeteries.
  As a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and as chairman of 
the Committee on Armed Services, my commitment to the veterans of our 
armed services remains strong.
  I have stated many times that the highest obligation of American 
citizenship is to defend this country in time of need. In return, this 
grateful Nation must care for those who are in any way disabled because 
of their patriotic duty in our Armed Forces. I believe the funding 
levels in this bill will provide the resources for the Government to 
meet its obligations to our Nation's veterans.
  Again, I congratulate the managers of this bill for the support of 
our veterans. I yield the floor. I thank the Senator.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chair.
  I think we are about to move to the conclusion of this debate, and I 
think it has been an excellent debate. I think proponents of 
terminating the Bion Project are, indeed, well-intentioned people in 
the Senate, the Senator from Wisconsin, and the Senator from New 
Hampshire, and I think their sensitivity and concern about the sanctity 
of life should be acknowledged. It is exactly because of our concern 
about human life that many of us who are proponents of science and 
technology support well-regulated, well-monitored, well-thought-through 
and necessary animal research.
  The issue of animal research is not new to this Senator. As a Senator 
from Maryland, I not only have the honor of representing one of the 
primary space centers in the United States, Goddard, but I also 
represent the National Institutes of Health as well as Johns Hopkins 
University and the University of Maryland, all of which engage in very 
strong scientific research and, in many instances, do use animal 
testing in their protocols.
  So as someone who believes that we need to have scientific 
breakthroughs to save lives, whether it is at NASA or NIH, I do believe 
we do need to have animal research in life science projects.
  I am not alone in that view. We have heard from a Senator-astronaut, 
Senator Glenn, from Ohio, who, as we know, was the first astronaut-
Senator to orbit the Earth, and I think Senator Glenn is alive today 
because the first lives to go into orbit were monkeys and we knew how 
to deal with gravity, how to deal with oxygen, how to make sure that we 
could launch him and bring him back safely. We heard from the 
distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Dr. Bill Frist, a medical doctor, 
again talking about the compelling nature of doing animal research in 
order to be able to save human lives.
  Much has been said about this project, and I would like to use this 
opportunity to engage in a factual conversation.
  Just to go over some of the facts, I would like to bring to my 
colleagues' attention that Bion 11 and Bion 12 are two cooperative 
United States, Russian, and French space flights and they are scheduled 
to go up October 1996 and July 1998 using Russian Bion biosatellites. 
Now, Bion spacecraft are satellites that do not have crews on them, so 
this will be unmanned. They were developed by the Russians, and they 
fly biological experiments with, yes, primates--rodents, insects, and 
plants--in near Earth orbit.
  In very general terms, the major objectives of these biosatellite 
investigations are to study the effects of low gravity and space 
radiation environment on the structure and function of individual 
physiological systems and the body as a whole.
  Understand, this is not the space shuttle with monkeys on it or 
rodents or insects or plants. These are 8 feet in diameter. They carry 
a 2,000-pound payload. We have had about 10 of these since 1973. What 
we are talking about here are 10 monkeys that were on previous Bion 
missions that were recovered. In the Bion protocols the monkeys are 
actually recovered. Also, Bion protocols do not include the sacrifice 
of monkeys. So we are not talking about ghoulish, Kafka, grim practices 
here. We are talking about research, done on mammals, that has been 
adequately scrutinized for protecting the animals.
  First, the experiments have been peer reviewed four times for their 
merit. So, no, these are not just idle experiments. They have been 
reviewed on many occasions for their scientific merit. The

[[Page S9792]]

whole point of their scientific merit was to ensure we were getting a 
dollar's worth of research for a dollar's worth of taxpayer dollars. 
And, was there another way to do this research on Earth? The answer 
came back resoundingly that this was valid scientific research and it 
was worth the money and it was worth the effort.
  These protocols are evaluated and monitored for humane treatment of 
animals. Prior to the external peer review by a group called the AIBS, 
a scientific group, there was a prerequisite for funding in which the 
proposals needed to be reviewed by the sponsoring institution's 
internal animal care and use committee. This is in accordance with the 
Animal Welfare Act, that every institution that conducts research with 
Federal funds must have an animal care and use committee, it must 
include a veterinarian, a scientist, an ethicist, and so on. So, again, 
it was not ``let's put a bunch of monkeys or rodents in space and put 
electrodes on them and see what happens.'' All of the scientific 
protocols were used to ensure the Animal Welfare Act was honored and 
was practiced on this project.
  I knew there would be reservation because this was done by the 
Russians. We are not in the cold war, so that is not the issue. But, 
frankly, one of the characteristics of the Russian space agency was the 
astronauts were known for their incredible bravery. It was an endurance 
contest. Often, their work focused on endurance test research.
  What ours is, though, is more about how we can protect astronauts in 
space, but also learning from life science projects that would study 
these biological effects that would protect people here on Earth.
  What I am told is that NASA is gathering data on bone mass, muscles, 
bone structure, healing in space, osteoporosis--something of tremendous 
interest to me--and so on. This research is leading to enormous medical 
advances. This benefits you and I and other Americans. We hope to save 
young children because of Bion research. We are helping to protect 
women from debilitating bone disease, particularly osteoporosis.
  Let me share a few examples. The Bion Project has enabled scientists 
to study the cause, treatment, and prevention of spinal cord injuries 
in space by using this primate research. The Bion Project has also 
produced data on fluid and electrolyte balance. This has tremendous 
impact on research for people with kidney problems on kidney dialysis. 
Often, people get sick not only because their kidneys are in failure 
but because of the failure to maintain an electrolyte balance. It has 
also looked at the generation of new blood cells and the whole issue of 
immunology. It is related to cancer research.

  We could give many examples of this. One of the things I think has 
also been very important is, because of the technology to monitor the 
primates, we have also been able to improve other monitoring systems--
for example, on fetal health, which I know is of great interest to many 
of our colleagues. The 8 joint Bion missions to date have produced 
access to space for 100 U.S. experiments, 90 peer review journals, and 
has accounted for one-half of all the life science flight experiments 
accomplished with nonhumans. According to NASA, similar unmanned 
satellite programs developed by NASA alone, without Russian support, 
would cost 20 to 30 times as much.
  It is not our job to review the project for scientific merit. In 
fact, that has been established. It has been reviewed four times for 
that merit. I believe we need to ensure the ongoing part in this.
  Ames Research Center has an excellent animal care program, as 
demonstrated by its full accreditation by the Association for the 
Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International. 
This is a nonprofit organization that reviews animal research around 
the facilities to make sure they are fit for duty and humane in their 
operation.
  So I think this project is of merit. I think we should continue it. I 
do not think we should cancel it.
  Earlier in the conversation, someone talked about the OSTP, the 
President's Office of Science and Technology. They also do support the 
project. I have a letter here from Dr. Gibbons stating that. I ask 
unanimous consent that be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                    Washington, DC, July 25, 1996.
     Memorandum for Dan Goldin, Administrator, NASA.
     From: John H. Gibbons, Assistant to the President for Science 
         and Technology.
     Subject: BION Task Force Recommendations.
       Thank you for transmitting to me the recommendations from 
     the BION Task Force of the NASA Advisory Council. I was 
     pleased that you decided to form the Task Force to provide 
     you with independent and expert advice on the program. Their 
     recommendations are clear and confirm earlier findings by 
     other groups charged to review BION missions 11 and 12. The 
     scientific merit of the proposed research, as determined by 
     rigorous peer review, was judged as excellent and important 
     to the future of manned space flight. Furthermore, it is 
     noteworthy that the review panel observed that there is no 
     known alternative means to achieve the objectives of the 
     program. I also was pleased to learn that the animal care and 
     welfare proposals for the Rhesus monkeys meet U.S. legal 
     standards. Finally, I am sympathetic with the Task Force's 
     compliments to NASA for its leadership in bioethics and their 
     encouragement for NASA to expeditiously implement a bioethics 
     review policy, thereby continuing its leadership in this 
     important arena.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. It said:

       I was . . . pleased to learn that animal care and welfare 
     proposals . . . meet U.S. legal standards . . . and the 
     [NASA] task force compliments . . . its leadership in 
     bioethics [as well as its scientific merit].

  So, when you hear from the Senator from Ohio, the Senator from 
Tennessee, the scientific community, I think the evidence speaks for 
itself.
  I know the Senator from New Hampshire wishes to conclude the debate 
on this, and that is his right. We respect that. I just ask unanimous 
consent that, when the Senator makes his tabling motion, the vote occur 
at 2:15.
  I will reel that right back in. Senator Bond and I were trying to 
expedite the vote. It is just a clarification of the time. Many of our 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle are flying back in. They may be 
delayed until afternoon, and I know they want to have their voices 
heard on this most important amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from New 
Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, this debate, on the part of those who are 
defending the project, I must say, has been very skillfully conducted. 
Frankly, someone who was paying maybe just a little attention to this 
and not to all of the detail would probably agree with them. It is 
unfortunate the debates and facts get twisted on the floor of the 
Senate as they do.
  This basically now is coming down to being an anti-NASA vote, which 
it is not. I have made a very strong point earlier in my comments about 
my strong support for NASA.
  It does not take one dime from NASA. It allows NASA to reprogram the 
money into areas that I believe and I think NASA would probably agree 
are more important.
  It is also coming down as being total opposition to any and all 
research that has ever been done on animals in the name of helping 
human beings. That is not the issue either.
  The issue is very simply this: Do you continue to do research after 
you have gotten the facts? Do you continue to do research over and over 
and over again for no reason?
  No one has presented any good reason for this project. There have 
been some general statements made about research by some very 
sophisticated people who I certainly respect, such as the Senator from 
Tennessee. That is not the issue. Once you develop a vaccine or once 
you develop something that cures a disease, do you continue to do the 
same research on the same vaccine over and over and over again once you 
have found out what it does? If you vaccinate your child against 
smallpox, do you continue to vaccinate over and over and over and over 
and over again, or is there some limit? That is the issue. Do you want 
to continue to waste $15.5 million on research which is duplicative or 
don't you? That is the issue.
  The Senator from Maryland said a few moments ago, ``It's not our job 
to review this project, or any project, for scientific merit,'' 
referring to this project. ``It's not our job to review this project 
for scientific merit.''
  I ask my colleagues, if it is not our job, since this bill is before 
us, whose

[[Page S9793]]

job is it? Whose job is it? The White House said, ``We don't need this 
project.'' In essence, that was the conclusion they drew. The 
Administrator of NASA, in a memo that cites him, basically agrees that 
we do not need it. The House of Representatives has voted 
overwhelmingly, 244 to 170-something that we do not need it. So if it 
is not our job to review it, why is it here? Why is it in this bill? 
Whose job is it to review?
  When we take that attitude, that is one of the reasons why we have a 
$5 trillion debt, Mr. President, because no one wants to take the time 
to review these projects, and the truth of the matter is, we have 
oversight responsibility in this body, and I take it very seriously. So 
we should review it. We should review everything. We do not review 
enough. If we reviewed more, we would find a lot more waste.
  There has been a lot of testimony from people who are experts, and 
some who pretend to be experts, in this debate. Let me cite a couple, 
because I think it is important to get some balance here.
  Sharon Vanderlipp is a veterinarian. She writes a letter to me in 
which she says:

       As former chief of veterinary services for NASA Ames 
     Research Center--

  That is where this work is done; that is who supervises this project.

       As former chief of veterinary services for NASA Ames 
     Research Center, and as a veterinarian with more than 15 
     years experience in the specialty of laboratory animal 
     medicine--

  I hardly would consider her an animal rights activist, I think we 
could draw that conclusion fairly safely. She spent 15 years in 
laboratory animal medicine--

     I am writing to request your support of Smith-Feingold 
     regarding the Bion experiments. I support animal-related 
     research when there are no other research alternatives and 
     when the derived benefits justify the loss of animals lives 
     and monetary expenditure.
       This is not the case in the Bion project.
       It is the charge of the U.S. Senate to represent the will 
     of the constituency in determining how their tax dollars will 
     best serve them. There is still time to salvage this $15 
     million.
       During my service at NASA Ames Research Center, July 1993 
     until my resignation in March of 1994, a review of the 
     medical records of the nonhuman primates indicated NASA's 
     failure to provide appropriate surgical monitoring, pre- and 
     post-operative care. Post-operative deaths were not uncommon. 
     These records were reviewed indepth by myself and included 
     animals involved in the Bion protocols.

  She goes on to talk about some other violations.

       NASA officials repeatedly ignored my request for assistance 
     in resolving a variety of animal welfare related issues.

  She also says:

       Many of the individuals associated with the animal research 
     components of Bion protocols are the same individuals who 
     demonstrated a total lack of respect for animal welfare laws.

  And on and on.
  Mr. President, there are people who are very close to this project, 
highly respected people, who differ, as we heard differing opinions 
expressed here earlier. I respect those differences. It does not mean, 
though, that just because they have differences that they are correct.
  I have a page here listing seven or eight physicians. Senator Frist 
is a physician. I respect him. But here are physicians who disagree 
with him on this project. Let me just read a couple.
  Dr. Roger White, board certified anesthesiologist, Mayo Clinic, Mr. 
President--Mayo Clinic:

       Any assessment must be reviewed as one of the most invasive 
     experimental procedures ever imposed on an animal, beginning 
     with surgical procedures of implementation of multiple 
     monitoring devices. It is particularly aggressive to the 
     point of being macabre as well as cruel.

  The Senator from Maryland said all this was done in the best interest 
of the animal, nothing macabre was done. I am not sure that was the 
term she used.
  Let me read exactly what is done. I think we should know what is 
done. It is the subject of debate. I do not think this is the only 
issue, but I think we should say what is done.
  Now remember, no matter how you feel about research, this is done 
because, and Senator Glenn brought this up, we want to determine the 
effects of weightlessness on these animals in space. Astronauts train 
and exercise vigorously in space to keep their muscles and their bones 
moving so that they don't atrophy, if you will. These monkeys are 
restrained. They cannot move. So I ask whether or not this kind of 
treatment is necessary now in this day and age after we have had 
astronauts in space over 400 days at a time to determine the effects of 
weightlessness on monkeys who are restrained, who cannot move.
  I do not know what ``macabre'' means. I do not know what ``gruesome'' 
means or ``grotesque'' means. I thought I knew what it meant until I 
heard the statement from the Senator from Maryland. If this isn't, then 
I would like to know what it is.
  This is in a letter to Daniel S. Goldin from Leslie Alexander of the 
Houston Rockets. They live in the Houston area, have business in the 
Houston area. They are very supportive of NASA and the space program, 
as I am. This is what is done to the animals in question:

       The Bion space project causes unimaginable suffering to the 
     young monkeys.

  Again, thinking of the words ``macabre,'' ``cruel,'' whatever you 
want to call it. If you don't think it is, fine, then you should vote 
the other way.

       The tops of the monkeys' skulls are opened, electrodes are 
     wired to their brains, holes are cut in their eyelids and 
     eyeballs, wires are run through the holes and stitched to 
     their eyeballs. The wires are threaded under their scalps to 
     reach the circuit boards cemented into the openings in their 
     skulls. Eight holes are then drilled into each monkey's skull 
     so a metal halo can be screwed into it for immobilizing the 
     animal for up to 16 days. Fourteen electrode wires hooked up 
     to seven muscles in the monkeys' arms and legs tunnel under 
     the skin and exit from a hole in the animals' backs. A 
     thermometer is surgically buried in each animal's stomach 
     and it too exits their backs. Straight jackets are sown on 
     to monkeys to keep them from ripping the wires out of 
     their bodies.

  He goes on to say that this project is cruel, pointless, wasteful, 
scandalous, shameful, and harmful to NASA's reputation.
  Mr. President, if you assume--if you assume; I do not--but if some 
do, that this type of medical research is necessary, then why do it 
after you have the results? How does a monkey, restrained, that cannot 
even move, how does this experiment in space help anybody find out 
anything? And the truth of the matter is, Mr. President, it does not. 
And everybody in NASA knows it. Mr. Goldin knows it. The White House 
knows it. And 244 Members of the House know it. But somebody in this 
Government, some bureaucrat, somebody who is not in a leadership role 
on this, has decided otherwise.
  So they send in this stuff. And they make it out to be an issue that 
somehow if you oppose this kind of treatment, that somehow you are 
opposed to all research, that you want to let heart doctors not have 
the opportunity to test and to do the things they have to do to 
determine how to operate on a human being. It is outrageous to make 
those kinds of statements on the floor of the U.S. Senate. This is a 
repetitious, unnecessary, experiment putting these monkeys through this 
for 14 days in space to find out the effect of weightlessness, when an 
astronaut moves around. He exercises. They give them, as the Senator 
from Ohio knows, prescribed exercises to do in space. They move around. 
A monkey in a straitjacket cannot move. And yet we still are doing it.
  This is not 1960. This is 1996. We have had 40 years of humans in 
space. Why are we doing it? Because somebody, whom we cannot identify--
no name has been given--in this bureaucracy has decided we have to have 
it. And it is being painted that this Senator is opposed to NASA. This 
Senator supports NASA. This Senator wants money to be spent in NASA for 
worthwhile projects, not wasted on this. We need to ask ourselves, is 
this the way the American people want us to spend their money?
  Dr. David Wiebers of the Mayo Clinic, chairman of the neurology/
epidemiology department:

       I write this letter from the perspective of an academic and 
     practicing neurologist who supports progress in medicine but 
     who also has considerable concern about the well-being of 
     animals who are utilized in experimental procedures, 
     particularly when those procedures are not scientifically 
     necessary . . .

  That is the issue here, not sickness.

       . . . and when they involve cruelty to animals . . . it is 
     my opinion that the scientific

[[Page S9794]]

     gains from these procedures will be insignificant. Moreover, 
     these particular animal studies are extremely invasive and 
     would be expected to cause major discomfort . . .

  He is opposed to the project.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a sheet entitled 
``Doctors say YES to the Smith-Feingold amendment to H.R. 3666'' be 
printed in the Record. It is a long list of physicians, very well-
respected from Stanford, as well as the Mayo Clinic and others.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      Doctors Say Yes to the Smith-Feingold Amendment to H.R. 3666

 (Excerpts from statements from physicians and scientists who reviewed 
                      NASA's Bion 11/12 protocols)

       By any assessment this must be viewed as one of the most 
     invasive experimental procedures ever imposed on an animal, 
     beginning with the surgical procedures of implantation of 
     multiple monitoring devices. ``Surgery #3'' is particularly 
     aggressive, to the point of being macabre as well as cruel.--
     Roger D. White, M.D. Board-Certified Anesthesiologist, Mayo 
     Clinic.
       I write this letter from the perspective of an academic and 
     practicing neurologist who supports progress in medicine but 
     who also has considerable concern about the well-being of 
     animals who are utilized in experimental procedures, 
     particularly when those procedures are not scientifically 
     necessary and when they involve cruelty to animals. . . . It 
     is my opinion that the scientific gains from these procedures 
     will be insignificant. Moreover, these particular animal 
     studies are extremely invasive and would be expected to cause 
     major discomfort. . . .--David O. Wiebers, M.D. Board-
     Certified Neurology/Epidemiology, Chair, Mayo Clinic.
       This kind of animal experimentation might have proceeded 
     only a few years ago with little or no comment or objection. 
     Now it cannot and must not. If human alternatives cannot be 
     identified, as the investigators assume, then this project 
     should be abandoned or radically revised and reviewed 
     again.--Jennifer Leaning, M.D., M.S. Hyg. Board-Certified 
     Internal/Emergency Medicine, Harvard Medical School
       During my service at NASA/Ames Research Center (July 1993 
     until my resignation in March 1994), a review of the medical 
     records of the non-human primates indicated NASA's failure to 
     provide appropriate surgical monitoring, pre- and post-
     operative care, and analgesia. Post-operative deaths were not 
     uncommon. . . . NASA officials told me NASA had no control 
     over the care of BION monkeys in Russia. Veterinarians 
     participating in the project who had visited the Russian 
     facility and observed the animals on location told me 
     conditions were ``draconian'' and that the animals received 
     food of little or no nutritional quality.--Sharon Vanderlip, 
     D.V.M. former Chief of Veterinary Service, NASA/Ames Research 
     Center.
       The question is: [W]ill this project substantially 
     contribute to [astronauts'] health in future space missions? 
     . . . My answer is that it will not. The rationale for this 
     project, as set forth in the protocols I reviewed, is 
     completely insufficient to justify continuation of this 
     work.--Robert Hoffman, M.D., Board-Certified Neurologist, 
     Stanford University.
       [H]uman data would be more valid and cost-effective than 
     animal data. Many of the surgical procedures are minor for 
     humans (anesthesia being necessary in animals for restraint.) 
     A cooperative human subject would not require some procedures 
     which are done for fixation. . . . I am not convinced that 
     this project will provide meaningful information in a cost-
     effective manner.--Dr. Dudley H. Davis, M.D., Board-Certified 
     Neurologist.
       [T]here have been a vast number of . . . sophisticated 
     studies of . . . vestibular function performed in humans, 
     above and beyond [the huge number using] animals, without any 
     appreciable gain. . . . [C]learly this same old type of 
     stimulate/record study of . . . pathways which has been done 
     exhaustively offers no probability of affording any 
     significant advancement.--Carol Van Petten, M.D., Board-
     Certified Neurologist.
       The only benefit ascertained in my estimation is the 
     continual drain of dollars out of the taxpayer's pocket and 
     into the pockets of ``researchers'' like the irresponsible 
     scientist[s] . . . who [are] common denominator[s] in all of 
     this quackery.--Jack M. Ebner, Ph.D., Physiologist.

  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, if I might interrupt to propound a 
unanimous-consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Hampshire yield for 
the purposes of that unanimous-consent request?
  Mr. SMITH. Yes.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I believe we have reached agreement on the 
unanimous-consent request that the vote on the tabling motion, which 
Senator Smith is about to propound, occur at 2:15. After he makes that 
motion, then the pending amendment would be set aside, and Senator 
McCain would be recognized to offer an amendment or amendments. And we 
would recess at 12:30 and come back in to vote at 2:15. And when that 
vote is concluded, Senator Bumpers will be recognized to offer his 
amendment related to the space station. There is no time agreement on 
that. But debate will begin at 2:30 roughly, 2:30, 2:35, while the 
Iraqi briefing is going on. Would my colleague care to comment on it?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the Democratic leader has instructed me, 
on behalf of our side of the aisle, to, upon the completion of the 
Senator from New Hampshire's debate and his anticipated motion to 
table, that we agree to the unanimous consent that a vote occur at 
2:15. We further agree that between now and the time we recess for 
party caucuses that Senator McCain will be speaking on his veterans 
amendments. And the Democratic leader also agrees to the unanimous 
consent that upon the completion of the vote on the Feingold-Smith 
motion, that we move to the debate on the space station as proposed by 
Senator Bumpers.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I, therefore, propound a unanimous-consent 
request that when Senator Smith makes his tabling motion, that that 
will be set aside with a vote to occur on that amendment at 2:15, that 
when he completes the propounding of that motion, then Senator McCain 
be recognized to offer his amendment or amendments, further, that upon 
the completion of the vote on the Smith-Feingold motion, Senator 
Bumpers be recognized to offer his amendment on the space station.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague 
from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues are here who wish to 
speak. I will be very brief. In another few moments I will be 
completing my remarks. I will then move to table.
  Mr. President, I have cited a number of doctors who have indicated 
their opposition to this. Again, one other one I want to mention comes 
from Dr. Neal Barnard who wrote me a letter regarding whether or not 
this is research that is worthwhile or not.

       Relevant studies have already been conducted on humans, the 
     results of which are obviously more pertinent to human space 
     flight. Extensive data is also available from previous human 
     space missions, some which have exceeded 400 days. NASA's 
     experiments using rhesus monkeys to study motion sickness, 
     calcium loss and ``sea legs'' are not applicable to humans 
     at all. The physiology of monkeys and humans differ 
     drastically. A restrained monkeys with electrodes 
     implanted in his legs cannot hope to offer insights into 
     the largely neurological, short-lived and self-correcting 
     problem of ``sea legs. ``* * * We already know of methods 
     to limit calcium loss and treat the symptoms of the motion 
     sickness and ``sea legs.''

  Of course, in this case the monkey is restrained. So any benefits 
would be minimal.
  Again, Mr. President, let me conclude on these few points. Sending a 
primate into orbit 30 years ago, 40 years ago, you could claim there 
would be some justification. But this is 1996. We have had, as I said, 
38 to 40 years of humans in space. Even our two highest science 
officials in the memo I already cited have said that project is not 
necessary.
  We have had humans in space for over 400 days at a time. Just about 
the time astronauts begin experiencing some of the problems associated 
with weightlessness the Bion trip with the monkeys end. Most of the 
weightlessness problems referred to by Senator Glenn happened after the 
14th day in space. And these monkeys are brought out of space in 14 
days. In the 2-week Bion missions the animals are being monitored by 
remote electronic instruments.
  The February 1996 Bion science assessment report said a major 
weakness of the overall project is the limited data collection 
capability. Many of the experiments planned for Bion 11 are weakened by 
the lack of a digital data storage. There are any number of people who 
would indicate that this research is bad.
  The second reason is even less of value, the bulk of research that 
would

[[Page S9795]]

deal with muscle loss and bone deterioration. Our astronauts are placed 
on rigorous exercise regimes, as the Senator from Ohio knows, while the 
animals are strapped in and remain immobile.
  It is my understanding, Mr. President, that all of the members on the 
assessment panel that the proponents have all cited--they have all been 
cited here--admitted that the fact that the animals are restrained is a 
major flaw.
  Let me just end on this point, Mr. President.
  I don't know where the votes are going to fall on this. But, look, 
this is $15.5 million spent on a program that is supposed to look at 
the weightlessness of monkeys in space when, in fact, we have had 
humans in space for almost 40 years, and inflicting unbearable pain on 
these animals. To do that kind of thing for no reason, I think there is 
no validity to it. I think it says a lot about a society, a lot about 
the people in the Senate, frankly, who have the courage to stand up and 
say, you know, the Citizens Against Government Waste are correct that 
this is a waste of taxpayers' money. They are going to rip this vote, 
and they should. It is a waste of taxpayers' money, and whether you are 
an animal rights advocate or you want to save taxpayers' dollars, it 
doesn't matter.
  I don't really particularly care which side you are on. I just need 
your vote. That is the point. The point is that it wastes Government 
money. If you want to stop wasting Government money, you ought to vote 
to table the committee amendment, and if you believe that you should 
not do duplicative research on animals--not eliminate all research--
then you ought to vote for the amendment.
  So I think that really says all that needs to be said.
  Mr. President, at this time, I move to table the committee amendment 
and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays having been ordered, the 
question will be before the body at 2:15 this afternoon, consistent 
with a previous order.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from Arizona is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 5176

       (Purpose: To control the growth of Federal disaster costs)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 5176.
       On page 75, line 10, after the word ``expended'' insert the 
     following: ``Provided, That no money appropriated for the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency may be expended for the 
     repair of marinas or golf courses except for debris removal: 
     Provided further, That no money appropriated for the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency may be expended for tree or shrub 
     replacement except in public parks: Provided further, That 
     any funds used for repair of any recreational facilities 
     shall be limited to debris removal and the repair of 
     recreational buildings only.''

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, my understanding is that this amendment is 
accepted by both sides of the aisle. That is my understanding. I would 
be glad to have a rollcall vote, but I believe it will be accepted.
  Mr. President, this amendment would restrict the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency [FEMA] from spending funds on certain low priority 
items. Specifically, the amendment would prohibit FEMA from expending 
funds for the repair of marinas or golf courses except for debris 
removal, for tree or shrub replacement except in public parks, and 
limits what can be repaired at recreational facilities.
  This amendment is based on recommendations made by the inspector 
general at FEMA. The inspector general's report concludes,

       . . . that while grant funding appeared to be within the 
     legal parameters of the program, policymakers may want to 
     consider whether program eligibility should continue to 
     include repairing such nonessential facilities as golf 
     resorts, marinas for large boats, tennis courts, archery 
     ranges, and equestrian trails, all of which serve a 
     relatively small segment of the population.

  This amendment gives us that opportunity.
  According the IG's report, based on their inspection sample alone, 
had this amendment had been in effect, about $171 million could have 
been saved. That $171 million could have used to assist others more in 
need.
  Some will argue that adoption of this amendment would place greater 
burdens on State and city governments. While that is partly true, it 
ignores the fact that the Federal Government does not have an automatic 
obligation to repair city and State facilities. For example, FEMA spent 
$5,687,002 to repair the Anaheim Stadium scoreboard.
  While I am sure that the good people of Anaheim appreciate this 
Federal largess--and will undoubtedly enjoy watching their sporting 
events with a working scoreboard--such repair is not a Federal 
responsibility.
  The Anaheim Stadium is an entity that charges admission. I would 
assume it strives to make a profit. Yet I have heard of no one offering 
to pay back the Federal Government for its investment. And I'm not sure 
that many would believe that scoreboard repair is something that would 
fall under the responsibilities of FEMA.
  Mr. President, there are needs in my State of Arizona that FEMA has 
promised to address but has yet to fund. And this is only one of many 
examples from around the country. In Kearny, AZ, flooding washed out a 
bridge that allowed students to go to school. FEMA has agreed to fund 
the building of a new bridge, but has yet to produce the needed 
dollars.
  Mr. President, I am not asking that Arizona be treated differently 
than any other State or that a problem in my State be given any 
preferential treatment. But I highlight this issue because allowing 
children to go to school is more important than the repair of a 
scoreboard or the fixing of a golf course.
  Mr. President, the Disaster Relief Act of 1970, specifically excluded 
States and local facilities ``used exclusively for recreations 
purposes'' from receiving Federal funds. In subsequent disaster relief 
legislation, Public Law 93-288, the authorizing committee chairman 
stated ``such funds should not be spent on golf courses, football or 
baseball fields, tennis courts, parks or picnic areas * * *.'' Yet the 
law does not specifically prohibit such expenditures.
  The inspector general's report states:

       [A] community hit by a disaster needs to have its 
     hospitals, schools, and police department functioning as soon 
     as possible; it does not need to have its golf course 
     repaired, or not at federal expense. However, as the Public 
     Assistance program currently operates, a golf course is just 
     as eligible to receive grant funding as a hospital, a marina 
     is just as deserving as a school, and an equestrian trail is 
     just as worthy as a police department.

  Mr. President, I hope that the people at FEMA will be able to 
prioritize a little better than they have. Unfortunately, now we have 
to take legislative action. We must prioritize where Federal dollars 
are spent and golf courses, horse trails, and luxury boat marinas 
simply are not high priorities.
  Mr. President, since its creation, FEMA has been the Federal 
Government's disaster response agency. In recent years, we have come to 
depend more and more upon FEMA. And although FEMA has been criticized 
at times for acting too slowly, it has done an admirable job. From the 
hurricane disasters on the east coast, to the California earthquake, to 
the flooding along the Mississippi River, FEMA has reacted to help 
those most in need.
  FEMA deserves praise for all its good work. But it also appears that 
a change in the law that dictates how it spends tax dollars is clearly 
in order.
  I recall being here on the Senate floor when the junior Senator from 
California made an impassioned plea to pass the California earthquake 
emergency appropriations bill. She showed the Senate pictures of the 
disaster and some of the unfortunate individuals affected by it. Those 
pictures were stirring, and the Senate quickly passed the bill. Well, I 
would like to share some pictures that tell a less compelling story.
  This first picture is of the city of Indian Wells, CA, golf course--
which is known as a vacation resort facility. Indian Wells has a 
population of about 2,600 people and one of the highest household 
incomes in the country: Approximately $100,000, which is almost triple 
the national average of $32,000.

[[Page S9796]]

The city has four private golf courses. This course, which is open to 
the public, charges a staggering $120 per person--including cart--for a 
round of golf. And because of the cost to golf at Indian Wells, the 
course runs a surplus of about $1 million a year.

  Yet, Mr. President, when in 1993 the golf course sustained flood 
damage, FEMA gave the city of Indian Wells $871,977 to repair cart 
paths, sprinkler systems, and erosion. Mr. President, the general 
public does not--or cannot afford--to use a golf course in a resort 
vacation community that charges $120 per person. And spending the 
general public's money to restore this exclusive golf course is just 
wrong.
  The next picture is that of the Links at Key Biscayne. This course 
received $300,000 for tree replacement.
  The famous Vizcaya Mansion Museum and Gardens in Dade County, FL, 
received over $70,000 for uninsured tree and shrub damage. The IG 
report notes,

       . . . [that] since the county charges an admission fee to 
     tour the museum and gardens, policymakers should determine 
     whether the Federal Government should be responsible for 
     restoring the opulent gardens of a tourist attraction.

  The next picture is of the Dinner Key Marina in Miami, FL. This 
marina only allows boats to use its slips if such boats are 30 feet or 
more. Slip fees range from $230 to $850 per month, the equivalent of 
the monthly housing rent for most Americans.
  Mr. President, I had my staff call some local boat stores there. They 
were informed that the cost of a 30-foot basic yacht starts at about 
$90,000. Not many middle and lower income individuals that I know of 
can afford a $90,000 yacht. Clearly, this facility is used only by the 
wealthiest of individuals, and not by the general public.
  Simply said, FEMA should not be spending its money on these projects. 
Mr. President, FEMA did not have to spend money on these golf courses 
and marinas, but the Agency chose to. And the money was, indeed, spent. 
We can't afford to continue this practice.
  I recognize that natural disasters do not discriminate. They affect 
the poor and the rich. The Federal Government's dollars are limited, 
and we cannot afford to spend them equally on the poor and the wealthy. 
We must prioritize how we spend the taxpayers' money. We only have a 
finite amount of money to spend. And as long as natural disasters 
continue to occur--and indeed they will--we cannot afford to continue 
to fund these kinds of repairs.
  There are many examples of waste and abuse of FEMA funds in this 
manner, in the manner I have elaborated here, and this amendment would 
stop that waste. I hope that it will be adopted.
  Mr. President, the inspector general made a report in May of 1996 
entitled ``Intended Consequences--the High Cost of Disaster Assistance 
for Park and Recreational Facilities.'' I think it is a very worthwhile 
document.
  Just to quote from a couple of findings on page 10, it says:
     Based on our sample, we found that FEMA has paid millions of 
     dollars for tree replacement in golf courses, parks, and 
     other recreational areas. Crandon Park in Key Biscayne, 
     Florida, received almost $3.5 million for tree replacement as 
     a result of Hurricane Andrew. Approximately $1.7 million, or 
     almost half of this amount, was to replace trees in areas 
     that were not used for recreational purposes. More than $1.6 
     million of the $1.7 million was to replace trees in a 3.5 
     mile stretch of a median strip and swale areas (side of the 
     road) through the park that were damaged in the disaster and 
     $100,000 was to replace trees in parking lots.

  Ms. MUKULSKI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to yield.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. For purposes of clarification, this Senator knows full 
well that the Senator from Arizona is a graduate from the Naval 
Academy, and knows essentially the issues around the Chesapeake Bay. I 
am very sympathetic to the Senator's desire to implement the report of 
the IG. I have another flashing light about the marina issue.
  Let me ask a few questions because the Senator knows from his time on 
the bay that we have 2,300 miles of shoreline with many marinas, and 
they are the small businesses, kind of general stores along the water. 
Some are higher income persons, as the Senator said. But a lot of them 
are owned by people named Buck, and this is what keeps them going.
  My question is about the consequences of the Senator's amendment. Is 
the prohibition limited only to publicly owned marinas, or does it 
include private sector marinas as well?
  Mr. McCAIN. I believe, according to the inspector general's report, 
that it would exclude marinas from receiving any Federal funds--this is 
their report--except for debris removal.

       Marinas in our inspection sample incurred over $22.3 
     million in disaster damage, not including debris removal 
     costs. Most of these marinas are for recreational boaters and 
     serve a small segment of the public. Some of the marinas . . 
     . generated enough revenue to cover their operating expenses 
     prior to the disaster, and a few of them produced excess 
     revenue which was transferred to the local government's 
     operating general fund accounts. Most of the damage to the 
     marinas was to piers and docks rather than buildings, which 
     were insured. The impact would be mitigated by purchasing 
     insurance, which some of the marinas have already done for 
     their buildings.
       Within our inspection sample we found that eliminating 
     marinas would have resulted in Federal savings of at least 
     $17 million.
       In commenting on a draft report of the associated direct 
     response recovery directive, it was difficult to justify 
     excluding marinas while allowing other types of like 
     facilities which are also designed for recreation, such as 
     swimming pools . . . tennis courts . . . because of the cost, 
     marinas generally cater to a small segment of the population.

  So in answer to the question, if there is a way to shape this 
legislation in either the report or in amendment language so that we 
could make sure that where there are low-income people and low-income 
boaters and not the minimum of 30-foot vessels, then I would be more 
than happy to work with the Senator from Maryland to clarify the intent 
of this language.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I appreciate the Senator's courtesy.
  If I might comment, first I want to reiterate my support for the IG 
report and for the general thrust of the Senator's amendment. I thank 
him for the courtesy of acknowledging the cost and the very nature of 
the geography of the State of Maryland with its 2,300 miles of 
shoreline. When it says ``small impact,'' that might be true with all 
of the continent, but Maryland is unique.
  I know the Senator from Missouri wishes to accept the amendment. I 
wish to cooperate. I wonder if our staff can see what we can do to 
ensure that the issue of marinas--that we get rid of waste, but yet I 
want to protect the small business guys that are named Buck and Harry. 
The Senator knows what I am talking about.

  So if I could have the concurrence, I look forward to working with 
the Senator. Again, I thank him for his courtesy.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from 
Maryland. She raises a very valid point. There are mom-and-pop 
operations at marinas. I would be happy to try to work with her in 
discriminating between those kind of facilities that are only available 
to a few. I think we can work that out.
  I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. We can't agree to a modification until we know what the 
modification is.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be set aside 
until such time as we reach agreement for modification, and then we 
will bring it up at that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, could I also ask my friend from Missouri--
as he knows, I have two other amendments. One, I believe, is in 
discussion stage with his staff, and the other, I believe, is 
acceptable to him. Would he like me to discuss either one or both of 
those amendments at this time or wait until a later time?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would like to confer with my ranking 
member to determine whether one of those might be accepted now. I do 
have a couple of minutes. I would like to comment on this FEMA 
amendment because this is a very important and very complicated issue.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Is that the concern the Senator has about the 
population changes and so on? We have discussed this. I believe the 
Senator in his steadfast way has represented that he would like to 
offer an amendment on another

[[Page S9797]]

issue, and I think we could take it. Does the Senator from Missouri 
desire to acquiesce in that?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I think we can take that amendment. I have 
some further comments on that to accommodate my colleague. I will save 
those comments.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would be glad to put my statement in the 
Record because, as the distinguished managers of the bill know, this 
issue has been ventilated on numerous occasions. I point out that for 3 
years this amendment has been accepted and then dropped in conference. 
So I feel compelled here in the fourth year to ask for a recorded vote 
to make sure that the Senate is completely on record on this issue, in 
all due respect to my two dear friends and colleagues. But 3 years in a 
row is enough. I would be glad to submit my statement for the Record.
  On that amendment, I will be asking for a recorded vote at the 
appropriate time.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. We have a unanimous-consent agreement to proceed to the 
space station amendment at 2:30. That will require a vote. I ask 
unanimous consent that a vote on Senator McCain's amendment relating to 
the VA resource allocation be placed immediately after the vote on the 
space station amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that no second-degree amendments be in order 
on the McCain amendment on VA resource allocation and that that vote be 
10 minutes in length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?


                           Amendment No. 5177

    (Purpose: To require a plan for the allocation of Department of 
                Veterans Affairs health care resources)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right object, I do not 
intend to object, but I think it would be necessary for me at this time 
to send the amendment to the desk. I ask indulgence of my colleagues to 
do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself and Mr. 
     Graham, proposes an amendment numbered 5177.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 104, below line 24, add the following:
       Sec. 421. (a) Plan.--(1) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     shall develop a plan for the allocation of health care 
     resources (including personnel and funds) of the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs among the health care facilities of the 
     Department so as to ensure that veterans who have similar 
     economic status, eligibility priority, or medical conditions 
     and who are eligible for medical care in such facilities have 
     similar access to such care in such facilities regardless of 
     the region of the United States in which such veterans 
     reside.
       (2) The plan shall--
       (1) reflect, to the maximum extent possible, the Veterans 
     Integrated Service Network and the Resource Planning and 
     Management System developed by the Department to account for 
     forecasts in expected workload and to ensure fairness to 
     facilities that provide cost-efficient health care; and
       (2) include--
       (A) procedures to identify reasons for variations in 
     operating costs among similar facilities; and
       (B) ways to improve the allocation of resources so as to 
     promote efficient use of resources and provision of quality 
     health care.
       (3) The Secretary shall prepare the plan in consultation 
     with the Under Secretary of Health of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs.
       (b) Plan Elements.--The plan under subsection (a) shall set 
     forth--
       (1) milestones for achieving the goal referred to in 
     paragraph (1) of that subsection; and
       (2) a means of evaluating the success of the Secretary in 
     meeting the goal.
       (c) Submittal to Congress.--The Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress the plan developed under subsection (a) not later 
     than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Implementation.--The Secretary shall implement the plan 
     developed under subsection (a) not later than 60 days after 
     submitting the plan to Congress under subsection (c), unless 
     within that time the Secretary notifies Congress that the 
     plan will not be implemented in that time and includes with 
     the notification an explanation why the plan will not be 
     implemented in that time.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this is the third year in a row that 
Senator Graham of Florida and I have sponsored legislation to better 
allocate health care funding among the Veterans Department's health 
care facilities. Despite the fact that this amendment would enable 
veterans to receive equal access to quality health care, no matter 
where they live or what circumstances they face, this piece of 
legislation has never been made law.
  Mr. President, in March 1994, I originally brought to Secretary Jesse 
Brown's attention the inequity in veterans access to health care. 
Despite their knowledge of the problems in the system that is currently 
being used, the Department of Veterans Affairs is still using an 
archaic and unresponsive formula to allocate health care resources. 
This system must be updated to account for population shifts. That is 
why Senator Graham and I are continuing our efforts, for the third year 
in a row, to change the way health care is allocated among veterans 
health funding by eliminating funding disparities among VA health care 
facilities across the country.
  The veterans population in three States, including Arizona, is 
growing at the same time that it is declining in other parts of the 
country. Unfortunately, health care allocations have not kept up with 
the changes. The impact of disparate funding has been very obvious to 
me during my visits to many VA Medical Centers throughout the country, 
and particularly in Arizona, and was confirmed by a formal survey of 
the Carl T. Hayden VA Medical Center in Phoenix, which was conducted by 
the Veterans of Foreign Wars [VFW] in April 1994.
  The problem has been further verified by the General Accounting 
Office [GAO] in a report entitled ``Veterans Health Care: Facilities' 
Resource Allocations Could be More Equitable.'' The GAO found that the 
Department of Veterans Affairs continues to allocate funding based on 
past budgets rather than current needs, and has failed to implement the 
resource planning and management system [RPM] developed 2 years ago to 
help remedy funding inequity.
  Mr. President, the GAO cities VA data that the workload of some 
facilities increased by as much as 15 percent between 1993 and 1995, 
while the workload of others declined by as much as 8 percent. However, 
in the two budget cycles studied, the VA made only minimal changes in 
funding allocations. The maximum loss to a facility was 1 percent of 
its past budget and the average gain was also about 1 percent.
  This inadequate response to demographic change over the past decade 
is very disturbing, and, I believe, wrong. To illustrate the problem, I 
would point out that the Carl T. Hayden VA Medical Center experienced 
the third highest workload growth based on 17 hospitals of similar size 
and mission, yet was only funded at less than half the RPM process.

  Mr. President, the GAO informs me that rather than implementing the 
RPM process to remedy funding inequities in access to veterans health 
care, the VA has resorted to rationing health care or eliminating 
health care to certain veterans in areas of high demand.
  The GAO says:

       Because of differences in facility rationing practices, 
     veterans' access to care system wide is uneven. We found that 
     higher income veterans received care at many facilities, 
     while lower income veterans were turned away at other 
     facilities. Differences in who was served occurred even 
     within the same facility because of rationing.

  The GAO also indicates that there is confusion among the Department's 
staff regarding the reasons for funding variations among the VA 
facilities and the purpose of the RPM system.
  Mr. President, this problem must be addressed now. This amendment 
compels the VA to take expeditious action to remedy this serious 
problem and adequately address the changes in demand at VA facilities.
  To conclude, I want to reiterate that I find it simply unconscionable 
that the VA could place the Carl T. Hayden VA Medical Center at the 
bottom of the funding ladder, when the three VA medical facilities in 
the State of Arizona must care for a growing number

[[Page S9798]]

of veterans, and are inundated every year by winter visitors, which 
places an additional burden on the facilities.
  I ask unanimous consent that the VFW survey be printed in the Record 
following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. McCAIN. I also want to finish my time by emphasizing to this 
Senate that the problems that exist at the VA have occurred for years, 
and that it is about time that we change the system to give our 
veterans the better care they deserve.

                               Exhibit 2

                                          Veterans of Foreign Wars


                                         of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, April 7, 1994.
     In Reply Refer to: 94-24.
     John T. Farrar, M.D.,
     Acting Under Secretary for Health (10), Veterans Health 
         Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Dr. Farrar: A member of my staff, Robert F. O'Toole. 
     Senior Field Representative, conducted a survey of the 
     Phoenix, Arizona, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical 
     Center, on March 14-15, 1994. During his time at the medical 
     center, he was able to talk with many patients, family 
     members and staff. This enabled him to gather information 
     concerning the quality of care being provided and the most 
     pressing problems facing the facility.
       While those receiving treatment in the clinics and wards 
     felt that the quality was good, they almost all commented on 
     the long waits in the clinics and the understaffing 
     throughout the medical center. In discussing their problem 
     with various staff members, it was noted that nurses were 
     under extreme stress. More than one was observed by Mr. 
     O'Toole in tears when completing their tour. The nursing 
     staff on evening shifts must rush continually through their 
     duties in an attempt to cover all their patients needs due to 
     the shortage in staffing in both support and technical 
     personnel.
       In attempting to determine the reason for this problem, it 
     became apparent that the station was grossly underfunded. 
     Which means that the staff must either take unwanted 
     shortcuts or continue to work beyond the point expected of 
     staffs at the other medical centers. While it is well 
     understood that the Veterans Health Administration is 
     underfunded throughout the system, it is clear from the 
     comparisons that this facility has not received a fair 
     distribution of the available resources resulting in the 
     deplorable situation now facing the health care team.
       Another problem in Phoenix that must be addressed is the 
     serious space deficiency, especially in the clinical areas. 
     The ambulatory care area was designed to handle 60,000 annual 
     visits. In fiscal year 1993, the station provided 218,000 
     annual visits, almost four times the design level. Many 
     physicians are required to conduct exams and provide 
     treatment from temporary cubicles set up inside the waiting 
     rooms. This bandaid approach has added to the already 
     overcrowding.
       The other problem that we feel should be pointed out is 
     that of the staffing ceiling assigned to the Carl T. Hayden 
     Veterans Medical Center. Currently, the medical center has a 
     FTEE of 1530 which is over the target staffing level. Based 
     on available reports, the medical center would need an 
     additional 61 registered nurses just to reach the average 
     Resource Program Management (RPM) within their group. This 
     facility operates with the lowest employee level in their 
     group when comparing facility work loads, and 158th overall. 
     To reach the average productivity level of the Veterans 
     Health Administration medical centers, they would need an 
     additional 348 full-time employees. While it is realized that 
     this station will never be permitted to enjoy that level of 
     staffing, it is felt that they, at the least, should have 
     been given some consideration for their staffing problems 
     during the latest White House ordered employee reductions.
       To assist the medical center to meet their mandatory work 
     load, and the great influx of winter residents, it is 
     recommended that the $11.4 million which was reported to the 
     Arizona congressional delegation to have been given Phoenix 
     in addition to their FY 94 budget be provided. To enable the 
     station to handle the ever increasing ambulatory work load, 
     the Veterans Health Administration must approve the pending 
     request for leased clinic space in northwest Phoenix and, the 
     implementation plan for the use of the Williams Air Force 
     Base hospital as a satellite outpatient clinic, along with 
     the necessary funding to adequately operate the facility. In 
     addition, VHA should approve and fund, at a minimum, the 
     expansion of the medical centers clinical space onto the 
     Indian School land which was acquired for that purpose.
       Approval of the above recommendations would make it much 
     easier for this medical center to meet the needs of the ever 
     increasing veteran population in the Phoenix area. There is 
     no indication that the increasing population trends will 
     change prior to the year 2020. This hospital cannot be 
     allowed to continue the downhill slide. The veterans of 
     Arizona deserve a fair deal and the medical staff should be 
     given the opportunity to provide top quality health care in a 
     much less stressful setting.
       I would appreciate receiving your comments on the Phoenix 
     VA Medical Center at your earliest opportunity.
           Sincerely,

                                        Frederico Juarbe, Jr.,

                                                         Director,
                                        National Veterans Service.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, under the previous order, we were supposed 
to adjourn at 12:30. I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted an 
additional 5 minutes to comment on the McCain amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 5176

  Mr. BOND. I want to address the FEMA amendment because the Senator 
from Arizona has raised some excellent points, and I believe they are 
very important points this body ought to address.
  In fact, the Senator's amendment stems from one of a series of 
reports I requested of the inspector general last year in an effort to 
reduce Federal disaster relief costs and improve FEMA operations. The 
IG has found a weak financial management system at FEMA as well as a 
number of questionable practices in terms of disaster expenditures. The 
most recent IG report found some very startling and troubling examples 
of what could be characterized as an abuse of taxpayer funds.
  We have already seen the pictures of a golf course where fees as high 
as $120 per person were charged yet has received $872,000 in public 
assistance grants following flood damage.
  Let me make it clear, because this area is very complicated, that the 
disaster relief that we are talking about is available only to publicly 
owned facilities. If they are privately owned, there are SBA loans that 
are available. But the FEMA disaster assistance goes generally with the 
cost share 25 percent local or State cost share with the Federal 
Government providing the other 75 percent.
  We talked about marinas and golf courses, but we could talk about 
equestrian trails, archery ranges, and other facilities benefiting a 
very small segment of the population where they receive millions of 
dollars for tree and shrub replacement. I believe very strongly in 
trees and shrubs; I plant a lot of them myself, but I seriously 
question whether that is an essential use of our scarce taxpayer 
dollars. There is erosion repair, sprinkler systems, and the like. In 
examples of the facilities the IG looked at which received Federal 
funds between 1989 and 1995 totaling $286 million, the Federal cost 
share was between 75 percent and 100 percent.
  While I strongly support the intentions of the Senator from Arizona, 
I am delighted that we are going to have an opportunity to work with 
him and other colleagues because we have asked of the FEMA Director, 
and he has promised, to report back to Congress by October 1 a 
comprehensive plan to reduce the amounts spent and to improve controls 
on disaster relief expenditures. He has promised to respond to the 
series of IG and GAO reports that I have requested. These reports do 
detail a number of what I would consider very questionable 
expenditures. There is a much larger issue, and we must pursue it 
comprehensively, not only in the position I serve on this subcommittee 
but I formerly cochaired a task force on disaster relief with the 
Senator from Ohio, Senator Glenn, and we have in that task force 
expressed our grave concerns about the escalating costs of FEMA 
disaster relief.
  Last year, some of my colleagues may remember, in this subcommittee 
we had to cut $7 billion in other agency programs, primarily housing, 
housing programs, in order to pay for the Northridge earthquake, and in 
tight fiscal times we have to be far more prudent in the kinds of 
relief we provide for public facilities where they are essentially 
profitmaking though publicly owned facilities.

  I can assure my colleague from Arizona that I intend to hold FEMA's 
feet to the fire in their commitment to submit a plan by October 1. It 
is essential not only that we but the authorizing committees address 
this issue.
  I look forward to working with my colleague from Arizona and others, 
particularly my colleague from Maryland, who are very much concerned 
about this issue.
  If there are no further Senators wishing to speak, I yield back my 
time.

                          ____________________